ObamaCare Includes Committee To Tell Folks How To Die

In Friday's New York Post, Betsy McCaughey exposed some of the lies in the health care "reform" bills that are currently being pushed through Congress. The promises of President Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama and the Democrat party do not jibe with some of the frightening provisions in the bills. The biggest lie involves the idea that people can keep their current policies. That is nearly impossible under the current bill.

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

No one with any political sense believed Obama about that anyway. Government is not a "free market competitor" as ObamAlinsky claimed. It is an instrument of force and that is how it functions.

One of the more sinister passages of this bill involves bureaucrats "advising" older folks on life and death decisions:

One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Are you starting to see where some of the cost savings may occur? The bill shows no other potential for reducing costs, so isn't if fair to assume that pushing our senior citizens toward the light more quickly could be the "cash cow" for reducing health costs? Rationing of care is implemented in most every country with national health care. In most cases, it involves a pecking order in which the elderly (and sometimes middle-aged) are denied or placed at the end of the line until treatment becomes a moot point.

So, Mr. or Mrs. Leftist-Liberal-Progressive, are you comfortable with a committee of federal bureaucrats deciding when your parents or grandparents have lived long enough? When that someday comes and D.C. pencil pushers decide that your loved one is a year past their treatment being a sound public investment, think back to the "bad old days" when we had the freedom to make our own health care choices.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.

Eighty-three percent of folks are satisfied, but we have a "health care" crisis that requires throwing that away for a government program? We have the most responsive health care system in the world and we need to gut it and turn it over to Barry Obama and the radical Left? These people are insane, but they are powerful and well-financed by folks that understand controlling people's health is a huge step toward controlling the people.

Sonia Sotomayor 2.0: Originalist Judge Or Lying Opportunist?

Barack Obama was clear about his ideal Supreme Court justice: he or she should put personal empathy ahead of the Constitution. In fact, the former constitutional lecturer doesn't seem constrained by the document in any way. He voted against both John Roberts and Sam Alito, even though he admitted both were qualified. Both "no" votes were ideological.

We have heard and read about Sonia Sotomayor's judicial rulings and speeches about the law. She certainly has seemed to be in the Obama mold. "Social justice" comes before actual justice. Latina women make better judges than white men. Federal district court is where policy is need (despite Article I of the Constitution giving ALL legislative powers to Congress).

However, a different woman showed up for the Senate hearings leading to a vote on Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court. This woman sounded like a champion of the rule of law who is more in line with Alito and Roberts than Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama.

James Taranto chronicled Sotomayor 2.0 for The Wall Street Journal. Some snippets:

Under normal circumstances, a judge who says the things Sonia Sotomayor has said during her confirmation hearings would not be able to win confirmation in a Senate with a solid Democratic majority. Consider some of the positions she has taken:

• On empathy: She repudiated the idea that it has any place in judging, as we noted yesterday.
• On foreign law: She expressed her agreement with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and said flatly, "Foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent or to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the Constitution or American law that doesn't direct you to that law."
• On the 2nd Amendment: She said, "I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." As to whether the Second Amendment applies to the states under the incorporation doctrine, she agreed with Justice Scalia that this is an open question.
• On abortion: She declined to endorse Roe v. Wade, offering only the usual dodge that it is "the precedent of the court and settled, in terms of the holding of the court."
• On judicial activism: She said that judges' "imposing policy choices in--or their views of the world or their views of how things should be done" is "improper."

Judge Sotomayor was under oath when she testified in front of the Senate. Now, I hope Sotomayor 2.0 is really a new and improved legal mind who indeed plans to use the Constitution as her guide rather than her unique Latina life experience. But, if she is more like the Obama ideal, that begs a question: does lying to the Senate in a judicial hearing constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors?" In other words, is that an impeachable offense? When Justice Breyer or Ginsburg inevitably use foreign law to justify a screwball decision and Sotomayor signs on to their opinion, will she have committed perjury? Something to file away for when the opinions start to flow.

Heritage Foundation Looks At Senate Health Care Committee Bill

This piece on the Heritage Foundation blog examines some of the amendments added to or voted down in committee as the Senate debates whether or not to annex the health care of individual citizens. Did you know that Democrats have buried more community development spending in the health care takeover? Oh yes, rebuilding sidewalks and creating bike paths will lower our health care costs. Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn attempted to control this with an amendment:

Financing Neighborhood Construction. (Coburn Amendment #49 ) To foster creation of healthier communities, the Senate Committee bill would provide federal community transformation grants to state and local governments. However, the legislation offers only broad guidelines as to where the money can go and does not limit the size of the grant. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of grant money to build and maintain sidewalks, parks, bike paths, or street lights. Other federal programs already direct money toward these projects. Dollars designated for improving the health care system, Coburn argued, could be spent on far more constructive areas, such as increasing access to health care. Remarkably, Coburn’s amendment failed on a straight party-line vote, meaning taxpayers’ hard earned dollars can wastefully go towards projects that are already funded by the federal government.

Keep watching for more details. The Left is very "creative" when it comes to spending your money.

Barbara Boxer and Democrat Racism Exposed By Black Chamber of Commerce CEO

Kalifornia Senator Barbara Boxer is one dumb broad. Really, no pretense of respect for the person or her position is necessary. She is one ignorant, simple-minded bubblehead. Today, she was humiliated (though she is likely too stupid to realize it) by Harry Alford, President and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. During a Senate hearing, she did what comes naturally to Statist-Leftist-Liberals: she condescended to a Black man because, well, racial identity is the only thing that matters to "those people." Or at least she thought.



Oh my! Mr. Alford wants to be treated like an intelligent, accomplished HUMAN BEING rather than just a representative of "some Black group." You see, Democrats, who claim to have the high ground on issues of race, do not entertain the possibility that a Black man could debate an issue unless he focuses on race. Not all Blacks are Je$$e Jackson or Al Sharpton. Most Blacks folks are, well, just regular people. In whatever profession they occupy they are capable of discussing concepts, ideas, data, and analysis independently of their skin color. What, Senator Airhead, does being Black have to do with "green technology?"

Alford's response shocked Boxer. Many Black leaders accept the condescension and belittlement in return for a place at the table. They gain from their relationship with the Democrat party, so they do not quibble with being treated as a sub-class of Americans. I don't know Harry Alford's politics, but it was great to see a Black man sit in the U.S. Senate and tell an arrogant buffoonette that she was playing race games rather than dealing with the issue at hand. Let's hope more folks of color begin standing up to this nonsense.

Obama Health Care Promotes Drug Use, But Tough On Cigarettes...It's All Smoke And Mirrors

The details are coming to the service as Congress prepares to put you and your family's health care in the hands of government bureaucrats. Under Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama's plan, tobacco use is the only vice that can result in an increase in insurance rates. Reckless sexual behavior? Smoking crack cocaine? Shooting heroin? No, an insurance company must insure those behaviors. In other words, deadlier behavior that can kill or leave a person with long-term physical ailments AND are completely the responsibility of the individual MUST be covered by insurance companies at the same premium as people who do not engage in such obvious risks. But, cigarette smokers are fair game.

From a financial or medical point of view, this makes no sense. But, none of this is about cost or appropriate medical treatment, is it? Tobacco companies have been painted as the "great Satan," so this is presented as a smackdown of the evil tobacco interests rather than of the smoker, who is typical lower middle class or poor. Of course, when that person can't afford coverage or their employer can't pay for insuring their smokers, who will be waiting with open arms? Why, our benevolent Imperial National Government will take them in.

There is more than one path to the Left's Utopian ideal of the government controlling your health decisions. What happens to insurance rates if they cannot charge premiums for those who insurees who are greater risks? They have to raise everyone's rates, so that those people are not "discriminated against." That means more people will not be able to afford their own and employers will not be able to pay for health benefits. Who picks up the pieces? Barry ObamAlinsky and his Brown Shirts will take care of you.

Understand, this is what Obama and the ruthless Left meant by the government creating "competition" for the health care industry. Never mind the obvious point that there are many health care companies competing with each other already (and more would enter the market if the government reduced its current regulatory barriers), the government would provide "competition." In LeftSpeak, "competition" means a new competitior with guns makes rules that apply only to the existing companies and that the new government entity does not have to follow and can change at its whim.

Random All-Star Game Musings

I still love the Major League Baseball All-Star game. When I was growing up in the 1970s, the game was my favorite television broadcast. In those days, those of us outside the major television markets saw the NBC Game of the Week and ABC's Monday Night Baseball (and where I live our closest ABC affiliate was a little dicey depending on the weather). The networks were heavy on Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs, and Reds. For a kid who ate, slept and breathed baseball, the All-Star game was your one chance to see some of the guys on your baseball cards come to life: Nate Colbert of the Padres, Amos Otis of the Royals, Cesar Cedeno of the Astros, Nolan Ryan of the Angels and Sal Bando, Joe Rudi, Reggie Jackson, Catfish Hunter and Rollie Fingers of my favorite team, the Oakland A's. Of course, I would get to see my Athletics in October, but those other players were in action once a year on my television.

As always, there will be some great stories to keep my interest when the 80th All-Star game is played tonight:

• Where does Albert Pujols rank among the all-time greats? Tonight, he plays in his 8th All-Star game, but first in front of his hometown St. Louis fans. Tell your kids they are watching one of greatest pure hitters ever.
• Less than four years ago, Hunter Pence was called up to the High-A Salem Avalanche, the Houston Astros' then-affiliate in the Carolina League. I probably saw him play six or seven games that summer. There are some guys who just look like Major Leaguers. It was obvious watching his skills and the way he handled himself that he was on the fast track for the Major Leagues. By 2007, he was in the Show and in 2009 he is an All-Star.
• Tim Lincecum vs. Roy Halladay. This is the best match up of starting pitchers since the AL sent Roger Clemens to the mound against the NL's Randy Johnson. Halladay looks like he is on the way to a Hall of Fame career and Lincecum's first two years in the Majors are among the best entrance of any pitcher in recent memory.
• Pitcher Tim Wakefield will make his All-Star debut at the age of 42! Only the legendary Satchel Paige was older in his first All-Star game (46), but he the color line prevented him from reaching the Show until he was 42. Wakefield is not only a great story for his perseverance, but he is another former Salem minor leaguer. He started his minor league career as a shortstop, but was moved to the mound full-time in Salem in 1990.
• How about two more former Salem Avalanche players in the All-Star game? AL reserve Ben Zobrist of the Tampa Bay Rays played in Salem when he was in the Houston organization. Colorado Rockies outfielder Brad Hawpe was a star outfielder with the Avalanche when they were affiliated with the Rockies.
• Normally, I would be critical of the fan election of Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton because his 2009 numbers are clearly undeserving. However, this is a special case. Hamilton's breakthrough season in 2008 was great in baseball terms, but the inspirational story of how he fought battles with addiction on the way to that great season struck a nerve which made him more than a ballplayer. He has fought injuries for much of this season, but I would love to see him make a big play in tonight's game.
• The 1971 All-Star game featured 20 future Hall of Famers. In 1967, 22 future enshrinees were on the All-Star rosters. This year's game may not yield that bounty of greatness, but there are some surefire future Hall of Famers in this game: Derek Jeter, Ichiro, Pujols, Mariano Rivera, and Trevor Hoffman have already punched their tickets to Cooperstown. Halladay and Johan Santana seem to be on the way. Which young stars will join the all-time elites and which will fall short? Prince Fielder, Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, David Wright, and Hanley Ramirez are all off to impressive starts. Who will be the Hall of Famers out of that group?
• One thing I would like to see: all-time greats should be included on All-Star rosters regardless of their season stats. I don't know how to set it up objectively, but if I were commissioner I would place Ken Griffey Jr. on the AL roster and Randy Johnson (though he is injured) on the NL roster. Who would you rather see in the 9th inning? Zach Duke pitching to Adam Jones or the Big Unit staring down Junior?

I think I'm going to go through my complete set of 1973 Topps baseball cards while watching the game tonight.

Liberty Summer Book of the Week: "Meltdown" by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

If you are tired of business as usual in Washington, D.C., Professor Thomas Woods has provided fuel for the fire. In his latest book, "Meltdown," Woods does not nibble around the edges of our bloated federal government to find the answers to our current (and future) economic problems. Instead, he stabs the beast right in the heart.

Throughout the last election cycle, especially with the disastrous economic news that began hitting in September, Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama bemoaned the failure of the free market. Government needed to take a greater role in the economy. Free market actors are all rogues, but government is the Lone Ranger, Superman, Santa Claus, and Mother Teresa rolled into one benevolent problem solving panacea. Sadly, his GOP counterpoint John McCain differed little from Amerika's First Marxist President when it came to allure of government solutions.

"Meltdown" exposes the underlying problems that brought on the current crisis and that will insure that any recovery will be small and temporary. It's the government, stupid. Woods' economic analysis is heavily influence by the Austrian School and, particularly, Friedrich Hayek.

Woods examines Congressional misfires of recent decades. He is equally willing to criticize Republicans as Democrats. After all, from 2003-2006, the GOP held the White House and both Houses of Congress, but did nothing to rein in Leviathan. Yes, I know Democrats accused every reform proposition as being code of racism, sexism, homophobia, blah, blah, blah. A note to the GOP if they ever regain control: "Grow a pair!"

While most Conservatives are well aware of the violence the legislative and executive branches do to the economy, Woods has scathing words for an institution that is always on the periphery of the argument, but receives little real criticism from either side of the political equation: the Federal Reserve. Did you realize that the United States became a world economic power WITHOUT the Federal Reserve? It is a fact of history that American expanded and strengthened for over 130 years without the Fed. The shenanigans were almost immediate. Many economists have come to conclude that the Fed was the key culprit in the 1929 depression (though Hoover and FDR did their level best to keep the depression going). Fed policy and pronouncements on the economy over the last two decades are shown to have played a significant role in the current collapse.

For those who accept the premises of supreme federal authority over all aspects of the economy, Thomas Woods' "Meltdown" will seem extreme. However, if you believe in federalism and the U.S. Constitution, you should be willing to put everything on the table in coming to terms with our current situation. The Federal Reserve needs to be examined, as does the conventional wisdom we are taught about the nature of depressions and recessions.

Ron Paul introduced HR 1207 which would audit the Federal Reserve. The bill has 261 co-sponsors--that is over half of the members! The bill has languished in the House Committee on Financial Services since late February where Chairman Bahney Fwank will likely do his best to kill it. A Senate version (S604) is also bogged down in committee. Let's see if the most ethical Congress and the most transparent President are willing to open up the books of the shadowy agency that is increasingly taking control of the American economy.

Roanoke Times Lauds Leftist Virginia Organizing Project

The Left-leaning Roanoke Times kicked off the week with a front-page, feel-good story about two girls working locally for the Virginia Organizing Project. Back on June 3, I wrote about my visit from the VOP. The Roanoke Times, being loyal members of the State media, did not bother to point out that the "community organizers" are part of a Leftist coalition that pretends to be non-partisan while promoting issues like nationalized health care and the religion of global warming. If they come to your door, ask them who funds their organization. They are "trained" to simply say private donations (you know, ACORN, Media Matters, George Soros, etc.).

Subtle propaganda is so much fun. From the Roanoke Times article:

So far this year, canvassers have found that 78 percent of people say health care is a very important or the most important issue in their lives.

Now, that can mean a lot of things. For instance, I told them it is important that health care remain a free market concern and that Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama does not Chief Doctor. Of course, health care is important. However, this group uses an overly simplified question to claim that 78% of their interviewees want the federal government to make their medical choices. Check out the list of groups affiliated with VOP:

ACLU Of Virginia
Advancement Project
BoatPeople SOS
Central Virginia APRI
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Clean Water Fund
Democracy South
Equality Virginia Education Fund
Environment Virginia Policy and Research Center
Fair Elections Legal Network
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Project Vote
Tenants and WorkersUnited
Virginia AFL-CIO
Virginia Association of Personal Care Assistants
Virginia Conservation Network
Virginia Education Association
Virginia Interfaith Center For Public Policy
Virginia League of Conservation Voters Education Fund
Virginia Organizing Project
Virginia Poverty Law Center
Virginia Sierra Club
Voice of Vietnamese Americans
Women's Voice, Women's Vote
Working America

Some are well known proponents of every Leftist ideology around. The ones that are lesser known are often even more Marxist in their goals.

The amount of money that has been spent and that is being spent around the country to create a government mandated health care trap could have been used to create a corporation that provides insurance to those who fall through the cracks. Instead, the plight of 15% of the population is being used to destroy the health care enjoyed by the other 85%. For young, bright-eyed college kids "giving" health care to everyone sounds like something only a soul-less cretin would oppose. The reality is that the health care issue is much more complicated. In fact, like banking, credit, housing, and automobiles, health care is already heavily regulated. Government, through regulation and judicial abuse, is a prime culprit in the high prices of medical care. The HMO system that is now the great villain was the creation of Congress in the 1970s with Senator Teddy Kennedy being the primary architect.

Plenty of Leftists have the means to create a privately-funded corporation to market low-cost health care. But, that isn't their goal. Statists like Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Virginia Organizing Project are anti-liberty and want the State to literally determine who lives and who dies.

The non-scientific statistics in this article are indicative of the VOP's functioning as a propaganda tool.

During last year's canvass, Virginia Organizing Project found that 64 percent of
people they talked to identified health care as the most important issue.

Really? In a November AP-GfK poll it was reported that national health care ranked seventh among the priorities for the new President. A USA Today/Gallup poll from November 7-9 asked which of five issues should be President Obama's top priority. Health care ranked 5th out of 5, just ahead of the category "something else." A September Newsweek poll ranked health care seventh out of seven listed issues.

I wonder if the VOP canvassers are asking folks if they are comfortable with their older relatives being denied care by the government because they are a waste of resources. I wonder if they know doctors will be treated as criminals if they administer treatment outside of government approval. I wonder if they even know the problems with health care rationing and long waits for care in Canada, Great Britain, France, and other countries with socialized medicine. I wonder if they have even thought about the big picture.

Why Is Mitt Romney A Solid Contender, But Sarah Palin A Liability?

Even before Sarah Palin's surprise resignation, Republican elites kept echoing basically the same line that the vile Left was spewing: Sarah Palin is a lightweight. Unable to discount her popularity among the party base, the Beltway Republicans kept telling us how she has potential. If she studies up on the issues she could someday be a player. Look, I am a dude and one is isn't particularly sensitive to the whines of modern feminism. However, the "Sarah needs to study" mantra is nothing but sexism. I have never heard such comments made about any male candidate who aspired to the Presidency, no matter how idiotic and asinine they were. She has accomplished more and has more executive experience than our current President and could read a teleprompter if that is the sign of being informed.

Mitt Romney is the name most often mentioned as the GOP front runner in 2012. Therein lies the disconnect between what Republicans say and what Republicans do. Currently, the GOP is fighting like mad to stop ObamaCare from being passed by the Congress this summer. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in a Friday editorial, Romney left an absolute mess in Massachusetts with his version of government-run health care which is eerily similar to the plan being pushed by congressional Democrats.

So, we have Palin who was a source of energy for an impotent McCain campaign and who is an inspirational leader in the Conservative tradition. Then, we have Romney who looks like a President and appears to lack sweat glands. He had several conversions "on the road to Des Moisnes," as candidate Mike Huckabee pointed out, which made him palatable to Conservatives. His record as governor does not appear to be impressive and he built a state-run health care fiasco that should petrify potential voters. But, Palin is a Barbie doll who needs to bone up on serious things and Romney is a front runner.

We don't need another country club establishment stuffed shirt taking the party over the cliff. Bush 41 blew a second term by abandoning Reagan. Bob Dole got his turn and no amount of Viagra could have put life into his campaign. Dubya won twice, but embraced much of the Left's Statist ideology and did much damage to the country and to the GOP by giving them what they wanted so that they could run on the right side of the fiscal responsibility debate. Sure, they are phonies, but they could legitimately smack the Republicans with eight years of their own spending foolishness. If the GOP had been fiscally responsible and respected federalism, 2006 and 2008 would not have been so unpleasant. Then, it was John McCain. Or was that Bob Dole redux? A tired old Senator who had no political core. In fact, his lack of a political anchor was his greatest selling point. Mr. Bipartisan. Mitt Romney is an ex-governor, not a Senator, but he is still 100% establishment.

I don't know if Palin is the right candidate for 2012 or not. I do know that many of the arguments used against her would not be used against a man. It is also clear that a charismatic Conservative like Palin is much more likely to energize the party and draw in Conservative Democrats than will a central casting politician like Mitt Romney. If you start thinking Mitt is the guy for 2012, just look at the health care debacle he created in Massachusetts and ask yourself if this is really the guy to lead the resurgence of Conservatism.

It Is Time To Bury Al Sharpton's Brand of Racist Demagoguery

In the midst of the fawning media coverage over Michael Jackson's life and death, the loudest and most belligerent voice was that of the Most Hateful Man in America, Al Sharpton. Beginning with the tribute at the Apollo Theatre, Sharpton demonstrated that he does not have the capacity to celebrate the life and accomplishments of Michael Jackson (or of anyone else, for that matter). His purpose at that tribute was the same as every word that comes out of his sleazy, vile pie hole. It was an opportunity to stoke the fires of racial division and convince Blacks that they are always only one step ahead of the lynch mob. It was also another chance to apply another layer of White guilt.

Rolling Stone covered Sharpton's diabolical hatefest, masked as tribute.

“It was absolutely disgraceful. If you look at how they deal with Michael’s so-called shortcomings and then the shortcomings of Frank Sinatra or Elvis Presley, it’s nowhere in the same world.”

By the way, the "so-called shortcomings" that Jackson was most disparaged for involved child molestation. I've never heard that Sinatra or Elvis diddled with little boys during sweet little sleepovers. To be honest, I'm not sure that Sinatra was in any way comparable in any "shortcomings." I do know that to anyone born after 1970, Elvis Presley seems like a punch line. Skinny Elvis vs. Fat Elvis. Elvis sightings. The Jungle Room. Elvis on drugs. Elvis' bad movies. If Sharpton wants to accuse "White America" of protecting the memory of Elvis he is as clueless as he is vicious. In truth, Presley's greatness as a performer has been turned into a pathetic caricature. And, adult Elvis didn't sleep with little boys and put on music and give them milk and cookies while they laid in bed. Elvis, Frank and most Americans do not agree with Michael that such behavior is "charming."

“There’s been an unprecedented allowance of negative, exaggerated and scandalous stories told about Michael Jackson and the Jackson family… In the temple of black entertainment on the stage that produced the Sarah Vaughns and the Ella Fitzgeralds, and the Jackie Wilsons and the James Browns we want to send a message around the world that you can write what you want and say what you want, Michael Jackson was ours and we are Michael Jackson and we love Michael Jackson!”

Jacko's oddities were no more scandalized than any other celebrity. Sharpton is clearly making this a black vs. white issue. Is he saying that Black people support pedophilia? That is the biggest criticism Jackson received. Is he saying that is a non-issue for Blacks? I'm pretty sure a large percentage of Black parents would not have allowed their children to spend the night with Michael Jackson no matter how much they admired his music.

“The reason we don’t listen to what you tell us on the news is we Remember the Time when nobody heard our culture, nobody would listen to our words…. You can scandalize him but we know better! Michael wasn’t no freak. Michael was a genius. Michael was an innovator. You can’t take someone with extraordinary skill, extraordinary talent and make them an ordinary person.”

Chuck Berry? Fats Domino? the Temptations? Wilson Pickett? the Four Tops? Diana Ross and the Supremes? Little Richard? Ray Charles? Charley Pride? Otis Redding? Aretha Franklin? Smokey Robinson and the Miracles? Nat King Cole? These are just a few of the Black artists who were superstars before Michael Jackson appeared. Yes, he was an outstanding performer and worldwide phenomenon, but he was hardly the Jackie Robinson of pop music.

It would have better to just celebrate Michael Jackson the entertainer. But, that sweaty, smarmy cretin Al Sharpton does not have such joy in his dark soul. Jackson was a gifted performer, but one with deep personal issues that range from his deranged father, the pitfalls of uber-fame, and the inappropriate behaviors that marked his relationships with children. The Apollo tribute and the funeral would have been a great opportunity to tune out the troubled person and focus on the performer. Instead, the lowlife punk threw pedophilia into America's face and essentially said "if you think that is odd, you are a racist!"

From Sharpton's rambling eulogy at Jackson's memorial service:

It was Michael Jackson that brought blacks and whites and Asians and Latinos together! It was Michael Jackson that made us sing "We are the World" and feed the hungry long before Live Aid!

Because Michael Jackson kept going, he created a comfort level where people that felt they were separate became interconnected with his music. And it was that comfort level that kids from Japan and Ghana and France and Iowa and Pennsylvania got comfortable enough with each other to, later, it wasn't strange to us to watch Oprah on television. It wasn't strange to watch Tiger Woods golf.

Those young kids grew up from being teenage comfortable fans of Michael's to being 40years old and being comfortable to vote for a president of color to be the president of the United States of America.

Michael did that! Michael made us love each other! Michael taught us to stand with each other!...

...Michael rose to the top. He out-sang his cynics. He out-danced his doubters. He outperformed the pessimists.

I thought Coca-Cola taught the world to sing in perfect harmony? This was so over the top it became comical rather than inspirational. People of the world get along better because of Michael Jackson? Gimme a break. Sharpton's total dismissal of other great Black artists is insulting to dozens of great performers who sold millions of records worldwide and broke down barriers. What did Michael Jackson have to overcome? In the early 1970s, there were the Osmonds and the Jackson Five. Pre-teen girls and little old ladies preferred Donny and the boys, but the rest of America, white and black, was much more into the Jackson Five. We didn't need a speech from a hateful demagogue or to have Black music explained. It was good. We got it.

I also don't remember any cynics when Michael went solo. As I recall, his music was all over the radio and he was everywhere. I was a teenager at the time and I don't recall anyone saying, "don't listen to that Michael Jackson stuff, he's Black, you know. Let's push Leif Garrett up the charts!" His ascendency to mega-stardom coincided with the growth of MTV and the video craze of the 1980s. Was there agitation to keep Jacko's music and videos off the air? Quite the contrary, he was huge. People only cared about the talent. He didn't have to fight "the Man" to get ahead. "The Man" was too busy doing his own clumsy imitation of the moon walk.

The worst thing about Sharpton's loud and disgraceful call to racial disunity during the Jackson mourning period was that the media once again made him the voice of Black America. I've never known a Black person as hateful as Al Sharpton. His existence and his wealth (by the way, where does he get his money?) depend on fomenting racial suspicion and distrust. Yet, there was Bill O'Reilly once again providing a forum to this scumbag. Sharpton has nothing to offer except an ability to loudly divide Americans. Michael Jackson is being laid to rest. It is also time we lay to rest Al Sharpton's bully pulpit as a racist rabblerouser.

FCC Discussing Ways To "Reform" Free Speech and Free Press

According to a CNSNews report, the FCC is having internal discussions about ways in which they can further manage the transmission of information in American society. Funny, but that sounds more like something a government agency in China, Venezuela or Russia would be involved with. I can't find a place in the U.S. Constitution that mentions the Federal Communications Commission, much less give it the power to determine winners and losers in the telecommunications industries.

The FCC was created to manage the finite number of radio frequencies available when that technology was new. Today, there are infinite sources for news and entertainment through a plethora of media. The FCC's purpose was technical, but today it believes itself to have the power to program media outlets and even use the tax code to save those who cannot make it in the free market.

According to an FCC official, who spoke with CNSNews.com on background because the report has yet to be made public, the document focuses on the availability of news and information to the American public.

The official said the report examines the decline of broadcast journalism over the past several years and tries to explain why traditional forms of journalism have declined while other, newer forms have been on the rise.

The report also examines the different business models used by different types of media outlets, comparing Internet and broadcast and print business models, the official said. The report looks at which business models seem to be succeeding and which ones are not.

The decline of traditional print and broadcast outlets is the primary focus of the report, which analyzes which new outlets are picking up the slack -- and why they might be eclipsing traditional news outlets.

Journalistic quality also is an issue, according to the official, who said the report would look at whether the Internet and other news sources have been able to fill the gap in journalism left by the declining print and broadcast outlets.

Note to FCC: those things are truly none of your business. We have something called the free market in America. "Traditional" outlets have declined because of competition and an unwillingness to meet the needs of their customers. Individuals do not need the approval of a committee of arrogant bureaucrats to decide if they are able to "fill the gap." Media consumers will make that call.

The second part of the report examines possible ideas for addressing these issues. Among the ideas discussed in the report are things like a potential government response to the decline of older media outlets.

Another idea examined in the report is whether the federal government could possibly use the tax code to aid struggling outlets, giving them tax breaks to help them survive.

A major issue the report details is the possibility of “behavioral rules” for broadcasters, according to the official. Behavioral rules might include guidelines that broadcasts serve the public interest.

Bringing back Cold War-era guidelines mandating that broadcasters do “non-entertainment” programming is another idea being examined, according to the official.

So, the FCC will decide what media outlets are "legitimate." And how will they do that? And what gives five bureaucrats that power? "Public interest" is a verbal distortion. That is a term used by a ruling class to decide what information they want people to receive. The only public interest that matters in a democratic republic is the ratings book. The result may be garbage, however I would rather endure free market trash than propaganda regulated and improved by the Kremlin on the Potomac.

Media and journalism are personal issues for Michael Copps (FCC commissioner), who has publicly lamented the rise of “infotainment,” blogging, and the disappearance of “investigative” journalism.

So, does that mean he would forbid networks from spending a week and a half covering a celebrity funeral? Copps is a Leftist in a powerful position. News networks and newspapers have the freedom to do investigative journalism if they choose. They choose not to do so. It is often the bloggers Copps so laments who do the real analysis and in-depth research he claims to desire. Remember, Rathergate? It was bloggers who uncovered Dishonest Dan's phony letter that he was using to influence the 2004 campaign. It was bloggers who helped expose some of the more unpleasant aspects of Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama's background. Could that be the real problem? That bloggers are bringing information to light that the "traditional media" ignores?

“Reform is never on auto-pilot, and in spite of all the marvels of twenty-first century technology, there is no GPS system that can deliver us to a new, progressive promised land,” Copps said on May 14 to the liberal group Free Press. “In communications, will ‘old media’ stalwarts like newspapers and broadcasting simply disappear—or will they adapt and survive?

“How about journalism?” asked Copps. “Will anyone figure out a business model to support in-depth, investigative journalism – or must we develop something completely new, perhaps based on philanthropy, non-profit models or public media?”

"Reform?" "We?" Is he referring to the FCC or the radical Left? What happens to the "old media" should happen organically. They have no presumptive right to survive if they do not provide a service that people will pay for. Maybe ACORN can run NBC; I doubt the news coverage would be different.

“We're not only losing journalists, we may be losing journalism,” he said. “Some blame the Internet and bloggers, and that's certainly a part of the story. All that consolidation and mindless deregulation, rather than reviving the news business, condemned us to less real news, less serious political coverage, less diversity of opinion, less minority and female ownership, less investigative journalism and fewer jobs for journalists.”

Journalism has committed suicide by becoming Leftwing partisans. Is Mr. Copps concerned that over 80% of journalists vote Democrat or is his plan to push the percentage over 90? The internet and bloggers are the solution, not the problem. They do the job "professional journalists" refuse to do. All the identity politics psychobabble tells us Mr. Copps is a dedicated Leftist who plans to use his position to attack free speech in America.

Take his complaints individually:

• "less real news"- That is the choice of the media. Does anyone really believe Mr. Copps intends to tell CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS to stop spending so much time on celebrity news? Pure subterfuge.
• "less serious political coverage"- Does that mean he is critical of the "traditional media's" one-sided political coverage? After all, the positive Obama stories doubled the positive McCain stories. Is Copps concerned about that? Yeah, right.
• "less diversity of opinion, less minority and female ownership"-This is not about the media's Leftist slant. This is a shot over the bow at the one corner of the media in which Conservatives have dominated: talk radio. "Diversity of ownership" is the new linguistic shroud for what was once known as the Fairness Doctrine.

Michael Coops if a Leftwing propagandist, pure and simple. He isn't worried that people don't have access to information; he is worried they have too much. This means the state-run media has to endure competition and Leftist politicians much face an electorate that is more fully informed. We can't have that, now can we? Keep an eye on this bureaucratic weasel. It is clear he plans to use the government to restrict free speech, free press and access to information. Mr. Coops radical agenda is clearly NOT in the public interest.

Sane Leftist Camille Paglia Explains The Palin Haters

Camille Paglia is an unapologetic Leftist, but she doesn't allow her ideology to diminish her humanity. That makes her the exception among Democrats and Leftists whose motto is "we hate therefore we are." Newsbusters highlights Paglia's attempt to explain the psychology of Palin Derangement Syndrome. Give Camille Paglia credit; her political ideology may be too far leftward, but she is a thoughtful and decent individual in terms of political debate.

Orrin Hatch: Czar of College Football

Orrin Hatch is supposed to be one of the solid, conservative leaders in the U.S. Senate, but with the a Son of Marx (Karl, NOT Groucho)leading our nation over the cliff the gentleman from Utah is worried about college football. You see, the mighty Utah Utes may (or may not) have gotten a raw deal from the Bowl Championship Series system that is currently used by the NCAA. Look, I personally find the BCS system idiotic and the automatic tie-ins to minor bowls an unfortunate change brought about by economics not better product. Ten or twelve or eighteen of the current bowls should be eliminated. Of course, a 6-6 record (a 50% grade) is seen by many as a sign of excellence these days. But, that is a sports discussion that is not worth the time of the U.S. Senate.


The point is, Senator Hatch, Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama has nationalized car companies, nationalized banks, fired executives, and vowed to continue the same practices that got those industries into trouble in the first place. Big BrObama is demanding we gut our energy system for unreliable and unproven alternatives; he is telling the world how terrible the United States is at every opportunity; he is working to destroy the world's greatest health care system in favor of a nanny-state medical system that has failed everywhere in the world; he is appointing federal judges who do not believe the U.S. Constitution has a place in the 21st century; and he is using federal programs to pay people to advance his political ideologies and priorities through propaganda campaigns. The media is in the tank for the radical Left. The entertainment and education systems are dominated by the hardcore Left. So, with all of this facing this great nation why in the name of Merlin Olsen are you ignoring all of these issues so that you can focus on college football bowl games? Geez, Senator Al Franken is more serious about the job than that.


One more thing, Senator Hatch. It's none of your business. At least it isn't in your job as a Senator. Please show me the part of the U.S. Constitution that grants the Congress the power to determine how college football will crown a national champion. If you want to appear with Lee Corso and Kirk Herbstreet on ESPN and debate the subject that is just ducky. But, sir, America is currently facing the most serious internal threats in its history. You need to work on behalf of the people on things that truly matter. If you truly believe Utah Utes football is of the same importance as ObamaCare, eco-insanity, and judicial oligarchs it may be time to retire to your beloved home state and let the people send a Ute to D.C. that knows his job and knows the score.

Roanoke Independence Day Tea Party in Pictures

A crowd of approximately 1,000 gathered in Roanoke's Elmwood Park on Independence Day to express their desire to bring the government under control. The general message of the signs, the citizens and the speakers was "government, know your role!" Limited government and maximum liberty were the driving principals.

Democrat AND Republican Elites Still Do Not Get Sarah Palin

SWAC Girl posts an update from Team Sarah in which Sarah Palin reflects on Independence Day, her resignation decision and the Mainstream Media's predictable smarmy response.

The response in the main stream media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans who are sick of the “politics of personal destruction”. How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it’s right for all, including your family.

That explains the Left and the establishment Republicans to a tee. It is incomprehensible to them that a politican could make a decision that is not conceived and contrived to maximize power and advancement. They have a ladder climbing mindset that is very conventional. Of course, we have just watched the methodical and intricately choreographed rise of a man who is a lightweight in every respect to the Oval Office. He made all the right moves and the establishment does not care that there are no core values behind the teleprompter.

The media and the Democrat pundits who belittle Palin, her family and her constituency can pound sand. That constituency is made up of the people who are increasingly NOT watching their broadcasts and reading their newspapers. That goes for the establishment Republicans who will sacrifice principle for a few crumbs at the table. They are the ones who gave us Bob Dole. They are the ones who did not speak up when George W. Bush was spending like a drunken Democrat. They are the ones who gave us John McCain. They are the ones who didn't think Barack Obama was that far out of the mainstream and certainly not an extremist. How did that work out for you?

Sarah Palin is a woman of the people. She will have an impact in some way because she relates to folks and they to her. She doesn't have to fake it. That is hard for an industry full of phonies to understand.

Rush LImbaugh Jr.: "The Americans Who Risked Everything"...Powerful History For Perilous Times

This inspirational presentation about our Founding Fathers from Rush Limbaugh Jr. (father of El Rushbo) should be read in every classroom in America. The risks taken by these exceptional men should humble us all when we whine about our own situation. It should also inspire us all to do what we can to affect change that draws us closer to their principles. They gave us an effective template and we have allowed greed, self-interest and rank stupidity to shred those ideals until our liberty hangs by very thin threads. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the U.S. Constitution. Read the piece by Limbaugh. Read Calvin Coolidge's remarkable speech on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration. Brand the words into your brain. Then, watch the actions of our 21st century government through the prism of their values and love of liberty. You will be angry. Let the anger make you involved.

Remembering Our Treasonous Founding Fathers: Thank You!

It is sickening to hear the daily bleatings of Barack Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama and the Democrat party calling themselves and their ideas revolutionary. What sheep squeezze! Tyrannical government which turns the people into subjects rather than citizens is not a revolutionary idea. In fact, it is one of the oldest political arrangements. The earliest warlords understood power and how to use people's basic needs to control them. Sorry, Leftist wonks, you are only about 4,000 years behind the curve.

The Founding Fathers, dismissed as limited and unimaginative by so-called "progressives," were the true revolutionaries. The word "revolution" does not just describe the act of separation from a great power. It also describes the ideas that formed the basis of their new political system. Individually, the ideas had roots in ancient Greece and Rome and elements had been pursued in Great Britain. No nation had ever put those ideas in motion in the way these enlightened gentlemen were poised to do.

Those who consider protest and criticism of traditional values a heroic act are simpletons. What risk does one take in criticizing American institutions? As of this moment, the First Amendment is still in tact. You can chant "Bush lied, people died" til the cows come home, but don't call yourself a revolutionary or pretend that you are taking great risks.

The men who voted to approve the Declaration of Independence on July 2, 1776 took risks. The lack of historical perspective causes most to see this group of "rich white men" as the establishment of that time. In fact, they committed treason. That's right. These extraordinary men risked a meeting with the noose to establish independence for the thirteen colonies. This was secession from the British Empire. Every one of those individuals lived under a death warrant after their act of defiance. Individual liberty for the American people was worth the risk. Some lost property. Some lost their freedom. Nine died of wounds or hardships during the Revolutionary War.

Please do not take them for granted. They are not simply names in a textbook or on a gnarled old document. They were genuine heroes who sacrificed their lives and fortunes for principle. They deserve our thanks, our gratitude...and our dedication to protecting the ideals for which they forfeited personal security to obtain liberty for a new and distinct people, the American people.

Calvin Coolidge's Speech On The 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

Calvin Coolidge is one of America's least appreciated and most misunderstood Presidents. The fact that he didn't love the sound of his own voice as much as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Roosevelt is somehow seen as a blight on his intelligence. That says more about the historians who derive this conclusion. They confuse motion and noise with intellect and comprehension. The truth is that Coolidge was one of the most astute Presidents on the 20th century and had a genuine respect and reverence for the ideals that the United States of America was built upon.

Coolidge gave a speech in Philadelphia in 1926 on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence that I believe is the greatest statement any President has ever made in reference to our republic's foundations. Remember, Coolidge was President in a decade that followed a questionable war and a series of federal usurpations in the name of "Progressivism." Silent Cal reminded everyone that principles do not change with circumstances and deviations from our bedrock ideals is regressive rather than progressive. This passage is from the last part of the speech:

Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government.It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers...

...Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp.If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

Even Beltway Conservatives Don't Get Sarah Palin's Appeal to Real America

This piece by Doctor Zero on Hotair.com hits the nail on the head. It focuses on Charles Krauthammer, but you could fill in the names of a number of other Republican elitists who say many of the right things, but who ultimately do not understand Real Americans in flyover country. Sarah Palin speaks to them and that is why she will continue to have an impact.

Saran Palin Resigns Governorship; Still Conservative Superstar

Sarah Palin's resignation announcement was definitely a surprise. Of course, her explanation made perfect sense. It is interesting that she had popularity numbers in the 80 percent range before she became the vice-presidential candidate for RATA (Reach Across The Aisle) McCain. They are still in the 50s despite the incessant attacks, most of which are coming from outside Alaska.

Palin is the biggest political star in the Conservative movement. There is speculation of a U.S. Senate run or competing for the 2012 GOP nomination. Some are saying she is done with politics. That still leaves some interesting possibilities.

Sarahcuda is a magnetic personality. The Left already knew her credentials before she was chosen as the VP candidate. That is why they stormed Alaska like it was Omaha Beach the next day. The attacks on Palin began immediately and have not ceased. They don't hate her because she is dense or corrupt. She is neither and they know it. She is, however, a strong and accomplished woman whose resume' is thick and who is a strong and articulate Conservative. She also does not back down from the jackals' attacks. If she were truly the flighty nobody they portray, they would not waste so much time and effort vilifying her. She is a real threat to their ideology.

Palin was the energy in the RATA McCain campaign. McCain's best selling point up to then was that he wasn't Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama. As soon as the people out in flyover country became acquainted with her, they fell in love. Not in the "hopey, changey" glazed-over manner of the Obama-bots; this was a woman who truly represents their values and point-of-view. She was not an elitist insider. These are the kind of folks who smell phony from a mile away. This woman was one of them.

Sarah Palin is not finished with public life. Dropping the constraints of public office will give her greater flexibility for her next stage. Family, of course, will be a huge part of her priorities. One need not hold public office to be a leader. As she has done her whole adult life, she will serve the public while taking care of her family. My hunch is that she will speak out for Alaska's energy resources and the need for allowing them to be tapped for America's energy future. At least in the short run, she can work on that issue which is of importance to her and her state as well as the rest of the country. From there, who knows.

One more hunch: the Left will continue to blindly hate Sarah Palin and do all they can to smear her. Unfortunately for them, the only folks buying that song are their fellow Leftist cretins. Real America recognizes a Real Woman, a Real Patriot, and a Real Leader.

Roanoke Independence Day Tea Party--Be Heard (Or At Least Seen)

Check the Roanoke Tea Party site for the latest on Saturday's rally in Elmwood Park in Roanoke, Virginia. Constituents of the 5th and 9th district should especially show their displeasure with Representatives Tom Perriello and Rick Boucher for selling out their futures to Leftwing special interests in the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill. If it does pass the Senate, Cap-and-Trade will have to again go through the House as a conference bill. Let Perriello and Boucher know they need to reconsider supporting the biggest tax increase in American history.

Check out Tea Party Patriots for more information about Independence Day Tea Parties across the country. There are at least 12 in Virginia, so celebrate part of your Independence Day with other like-minded patriots. Maybe you can even drag a few of your mushy moderate friends along, so that they can see the Conservative grass roots in action.

Obama's EPA Repeals 1st Amendment and Transparency

The Wall Street Journal has a shocking piece on the Obama administration's silencing of a global warming heretic. The EPA is the agency at work in forcing scientists to accept climate extremist ideology over, you know, science! The global warming goons sound like the ruling classes of Medieval times who would declare a "scientific truth" and imprison anyone who dissented from their pronouncements.

EPA scientist Alan Carlin found out that you don't go against the family. Chicago rules have replaced scientific inquiry.

In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.

Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.

The emails were unearthed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Republican officials are calling for an investigation; House Energy Committee ranking member Joe Barton sent a letter with pointed questions to Mrs. Jackson, which she's yet to answer. The EPA has issued defensive statements, claiming Mr. Carlin wasn't ignored. But there is no getting around that the Obama administration has flouted its own promises of transparency.

Now, there is change you can believe in. Science is now a religion or a rigid corporate doctrine. Independent thought will be punished. Big BrObama is watching.

But, never fear. You can be sure our Mainstream Media will do their job and investigate Big BrObama and the EPA's crackdown on scientific analysis. Just as soon as they finish with Michael Jackson's memorial service...Michelle Obama's garden...and Sarah Palin's relationship with Lucifer...and the attempts to overthrow a legitimate election in Iran...and America's desire to embrace illegal immigration...and the racist Conservative attacks on Sonya Sotomayor...and Chastity Bono's genitalia...and Barack looking cool...and Barack looking fit...and Barack being intelligent...and Barack saving the economy....but, eventually they will look into this thing.

Barack Obama Wins Daytime Emmy For Best Lead Role In A Drama

All politics has an element of propaganda, but Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama and his gaggle of clowns have taken the phenomenon to a new level. The staging of Obama's health care "town hall" was so blatant, I don't know whether to laugh or to be frightened. This seemed like something Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro would have arranged to put a happy face on their latest usurpation of individual liberties. Of course, given the fact that Obama is of the same voice as Chavez and Castro on the Honduran president's overthrow after trying to become lifetime dictator, maybe we should be more alarmed than amused.

The emotional bang came from a lady from southwest Virginia named Debby Smith who is dealing with cancer. She is not the villain and everyone wishes her well and hopes she will get the needed treatments for a full recovery. However, she was not just someone who happened to be there. She is an employee of Obama's Organizing For America brownshirts within the DNC. The White House brought her to the event. Maybe she should ask her boss about helping her out. Of course, to her boss, Comrade Obama, Ms. Smith was simply "Exhibit A" (his words) for why all Americans should turn their health care over to the imperial federal government. The hug made for nice theatre, but she was used as a prop for further Statist usurpations of American freedom.

If Leftist Democrats were serious about health care costs, they would examine the reasons for those costs. When was the last time you heard a Democrat seriously discussing changes to policies and laws that would give greater freedom and flexibility to individuals, employers, and insurers? No, they simply beat us over the head with "turn your life over to the government and all will be well." Its about power, pure and simple. The amazing thing is that the dumb masses do not laugh in their collective faces when Democrats talk about government making an industry, any industry, more effective and efficient. The federal government is the Babe Ruth of inefficiency.

The extent of the ObamAlinsky propaganda machine has even led to antique journalist Helen Thomas snapping back at their media control. Thomas is a leftwing elitist, but even she is alarmed at the White House's tight grip on media access and staging of events. Give credit to Helen Thomas; unlike Katie Couric, Andrea Mitchell, Chrissy Matthews, George Stephanopolous, and most of the Mainstream Media she still has at least a little journalistic integrity.

One question for the DNC, Barry Vladimir Hussein Obama, the Mainstream Media, and all the front groups raising money to propagandize Americans to forfeit their bodies to government control: instead of spending tens of millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars on spin and misinformation, why not create a free market insurance company based on the principles you want the government to impose on the folks? If you really want to provide insurance to 46 million uninsured people, you could easily get the ball rolling without involving the other 260 million people. Or could it be power, not health is the primary concern?

Mom's Beautiful Day Lilies

My mother has had a long affection for day lilies and has a huge assortment in her garden. Here are just a few of the gorgeous flowers decorating my parents' yard.

Mark Levin Butchers History Of The South And The Constitution

I love Mark Levin and his books have been important contributions to the Conservative movement. However, he got on a rant at the end of his show today that demonstrates the limits of a Yankee education. I've heard him tell his version of the North/South issues of antebellum American, so it wasn't a big shock. The misunderstanding of early American history is a big problem when it comes to truly understanding how and why our liberties are under attack now. Conventional Conservatives typically start with FDR and work forward through the Great Society and the impact of educational and media indoctrination over the last half century. Occassionally, they will venture back to Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, though they are careful to uphold Theodore Roosvelt as a paragon of liberty even though we may well have been more of a Statist than Wilson.

Levin was on a slavery, the South and "Civil War" kick for some reason. I'll admit, I missed out on what led into the rant, but what I heard was a severe lack of historical depth. First, he was talking about how a clause to end the slave trade in twenty years was placed in the Constitution to appease the South. In fact, every Southern state except South Carolina outlawed the importation of slaves prior to 1808. When Congress passed a law to place a federal ban on slave importation in 1808, there were representatives from four states in opposition: South Carolina, Virginia, Vermont and New Hampshire (FYI, the last two are not in the South).

From there he jumped to how the North went to war to end slavery. Oh my. First, let me suggest what I believe is the best book on the subject: "When In The Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams. The refusal by so many to accept that there were any burning issues in antebellum America other than slavery is detrimental to our understanding of the earliest attacks on the Constitution.

Conservatives fall into a trap with the focus on slavery in that historical discussion. The other issue, and the one which had a bigger impact on secession, was the federal government's tariff policy. The tariff was the primary revenue source for the central government. The Whig party, and then the Republican party, favored a tariff system that favored manufacturing states at the expense of agricultural exporting states. Southern states argued that the tariff laws violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Now, by chance, the lineups are essentially the same. The anti-slavery states were also the pro-tariff states as they paid little in tariffs and reaped the benefits of road, canal, and eventually railroad construction grants from the federal government. The slave states opposed the protective tariffs because they paid the lion's share while receiving few direct benefits. In other words, the Whigs and Republicans were practicing the same kind of income redistribution that Leftist Democrats do today. Obviously, their abuse paled in extent to what we see today, but it was an unchecked usurpation that eroded federalism and helped feed Leviathan.

I think Conservatives are afraid of this issue, but to understand how we have gotten to this point it is vital to understand that liberty has been under attack and the State has been on the advance since the ink on the Constitution was barely dry. It is a tremendous irony that a war that did result in the ending of slavery (although that was an afterthought and not a primary purpose) also greatly advanced the war on federalism and the growth of central power. There is no denying this fact.

Being historically correct is not a defense of slavery. It was an immoral institution. However, slavery's immorality should not be used to shroud the violence done to the Constitution and federalism by the Whigs/Republicans of that time (including Saint Abraham). Check out the words of French economic philosopher Frederic Bastiat in 1850:

Look at the United States There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But, even in the United States, there are two issues, and only two, that have always endangered the public peace.

What are these two questions? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

The one evil was eradicated from the United States. The other, the primary reason for the War of the Rebellion, was vindicated with the Union victory. The non-slaveowners are uncritically considered the heroes of the episode even though they did great violence to the Constitution. As Bastiat said, there were two pervasive evils. It is time we finally defeat the other one, which is unlawful plunder of man's property for redistribution by the state. An important step is admitting the genesis of the problem as we strike at the roots.

Why Is The Mainstream Media Surprised That Wal-Mart Supports ObamaCare?

Wal-Mart's announcement of its support for Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama's nationalized health care scheme has sent shockwaves through the state-run media. Shocking! The eeee-vil corporate giant supporting the kind-and-benevolent Democrats' desire to mandate mediocre medical care to all Americans is reported as a surprise development in the long march toward socialized medicine. Is the mainstream media really that stupid or are they convinced that we are?

Wal-Mart already has health care for employees. They see the strong possibility of more stringent federal regulations on employer-based health care and the likelihood of a government option. Hmmmm, so Wal-Mart can be a "good corporate citizen" and support universal health care while shedding the responsibility of paying for it directly. There is a reason the company has been so successful and will continue to be. They know how to play the game.

I don't fault Wal-Mart for this action. They are acting as good stewards of their company and their stockholders. They understand what Dr. Barry Mengele doesn't want you to grasp. The "public option" is less for individuals than it is for businesses. Why should they shoulder the responsibility of their employees' medical care when the imperial federal government is willing to take their workers into a government-based system?

Here is the other inconvenient truth of most government regulations and usurpations: despite all the "evil corporation" rhetoric that the Statists spew to the dumb masses these centrally-planned schemes are a boon to Big Bidness. The math is simple. Who can more easily absorb the greater costs of regulation and taxation, as established company or one that is growing or in the start-up phase? A larger corporation can diffuse the increased costs more broadly with less of a hit to the bottom line than can a smaller company. Ultimately, the consumers will pay any increased corporate taxes through higher prices, so Wal-Mart can do that more cheaply than can Bob-Mart, Sid-Mart or Dave-Mart.

Obama's health care scheme comes from the same totalitarian desires as his nationalization of banks, car companies and the energy industry. There is precedent. Americans should look back at FDR's horrendous National Industrial Recovery Act for an example of how this works. Competition and the free market were blamed for the depression that became "Great" with FDR's help. The NRA abolished competition and forced industries into strictly-enforced rules that eliminated the dynamism of capitalism.

So, expect more big corporations to jump on board. It is clear that any company that is willing to play ball with Comrade Obama will be taken care of and those who do not will become targets. I wonder how the Leftist propagandists will square their hate of corporate America with industrial support for universal health care? Or will they even need to as the dumb masses continue to mourn Michael Jackson and prepare for the next season of American Idol?

Obama Wants California To Be The Model For America; Bill Belichek Adopts Detroit Lions Defense

Every day, the same question pops into my head. Is Barry Vladimir Hussein Soetero Obama really this stupid or is he just convinced that the American sheeple are this stupid? The People's Republik of Kalifornia is hemorraghing jobs, losing population (outside of illegal immigrants), crushing its people with taxes and regulations and Obama holds the state up as the example the rest of the country should follow. Kalifornia and its incompetent governator do not have the money to run their government. Last night, they shut down discussions on an emergency plan to keep the state afloat. The Washington Examiner provides details of Kalifornia's descent into its Statist nightmare.

In the spirit of ObamAlinsky's desire to turn all of the United States into a fiscal basket case like Kalifornia, some possible inspirations from Obama's example:

• New England Patriots coach Bill Belichek adopts the Detroit Lions' offense.
• Coca-Cola relaunches "New Coke"
• Mariah Carey takes singing lessons from Roseanne Barr
• Mark Sanford hires Larry King as his marriage counselor
• FoxNews vows to be more like MSNBC