Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two

I always love it when a good movie has a sequel that's even better than the first installment. So it is when Keynes and Hayek go at it again in their rapping lessons on economics and politics.



And in case you missed the first one:



And what do you think? Is President Obama a Keynesian?

Why Homeschool, Part 30

So your kids won't be indoctrinated by Marxists!

The Other McCain reports:

Steve Foley at Minority Report describes this video, recorded at last month’s Left Forum in New York City:

Sarah Knopp, a Los Angeles teachers union leader (in the Tax the Rich shirt) and Megan Behrent a New York City teacher affiliated with the International Socialist Organization, explain how to push Marxism in the public school classroom.

This panel discussion, entitled ”Capitalism and Education: A Marxist Discourse on What We’re Fighting Against and What We’re Fighting For,” was sponsored by the magazine International Socialist Review. (I’ve screencapped this from their Facebook page.)

Notice that participants in this panel included two public university professors who train teachers: Jean Anyon of City University of New York and Jeff Bale of Michigan State University.

Parents who continue sending their children to public schools government indoctrination centers always react to revelations like this by saying, “Oh, that kind of stuff isn’t happening in our school. We live in a good district!”

To such parents, I ask: Do you think people like Sarah Knopp and Megan Behrent only teach in bad school districts? How many more socialist teachers like Knopp and Behrent are there in America? And do you think they advertise their beliefs to the parents in their districts? [Emphasis in original.]

School choice -- including homeschooling -- is the only answer to this sort of problem. And make no mistake, these are the people driving the opposition to school choice!

For Liberals, Some Defendants Shouldn't Be Defended

The law firm that was to defend the Defense of Marriage Act has been pressured to withdraw:

News reports this morning indicate that King & Spalding — the firm whose partner, former solicitor general Paul Clement, was slated to defend the Defense of Marriage Act — has decided to withdraw. This follows a campaign of intimidation with threats from law schools and activist groups that retribution would follow if the firm continued to defend the law. This tantrum and its seeming success tell us that many on the left believe they have a veto on the principle that everybody deserves to be represented in court. It also suggests that there are few limits on what gay marriage supporters will do to marginalize those with whom they disagree. It’s worth remembering, as Maggie Gallagher says, that this is what “marriage equality” means. Paul Clement’s principled stand, which Kathryn has noted, is a much-needed grown-up decision and a very powerful rebuke to the intimidators. [Emphasis added.]

They know no principles. They only know what they want, and there is little they won't do to get it. I have a commenter who defended President Obama's decision not to defend this law saying that it would receive better representation this way. I wonder what she'll say about this.

Follow those links, and read what those people are saying. They're saying that 5,000 years of human tradition is nothing but bigotry, that they have the right to force gay "marriage" on us against our will, and that threats and intimidation are an appropriate response to what they call "intolerance." Well, the only "intolerance" going on here is coming from gays, who are simply throwing a temper tantrum about the fact that, since they have rejected the mores of human society, some in society have been less than enthusiastic in response.

Star Wars Song

My children will not stop singing this song.



So it might as well be stuck in your head, too.

Catholic Prayer Breakfast

A Saturday Laugh

It's just been brought to attention that, in addition to the Easter Triduum, today is also Talk Like Shakespeare Day!

The Essence Of Non-Marital Cohabitation

Abortion Ensures Wisconsin Will Be Conservative

James Taranto at The Wall Street Journal has done the math (H/T: The Other McCain):

There probably are many more like Tricia Willoughby, aren't there? After all, her parents are "pro-life activists," which means they have a tendency to follow the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply. People on the other political side are more inclined toward subtraction (or as they call it, "choice"), as we explained in our 2005 paper "The Roe Effect."

Here are some Badger State numbers: Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. The Wisconsin Department of Health has statewide figures on the annual number of abortions going back to 1975. Tot up the numbers through 1992, and you come up with 316,457.

Scott Walker won the governorship last year by a margin of 124,638. That may not be within the margin of abortion; after all, some of the missing 316,457 would have voted Republican had they existed, and many would not have voted.

But JoAnne Kloppenburg, the left-liberal state Supreme Court candidate who was supposed to save Wisconsin's labor monopolies from Walker's reforms, lost by just 7,316 votes, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (this figure is pending a possible futile recount). It's almost inconceivable that the Roe effect alone is insufficient to account for Justice David Prosser's victory.

Oh, and in four years, Tricia Willoughby will be old enough to vote, while an additional 54,522 will not be.

Abortion; it's not an evolutionary survival technique.

(Cross-posted from Lake County Right to Life Blog.)

Petition to Redistribute GPA Scores

College Republicans at UC-Merced try to get support to redisribute "excessive" GPA scores to those who are struggling to fulfill graduation requirements. What kind of response do you think they get?



(H/T: Cold Fury.)

Wesley Mouch To Boeing: You Will Not Move

In Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, Wesley Mouch is the scumbag lobbyist who is ultimately appointed as America's economic dictator. This is in a novel written over 50 years ago, but don't imagine that he's not real (H/T: Backyard Conservative):

In what may be the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama, the agency filed a complaint Wednesday seeking to force Boeing to bring an airplane production line back to its unionized facilities in Washington State instead of moving the work to a nonunion plant in South Carolina.

In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in retaliation against workers for exercising the right to strike.

Indeed? But isn't it also illegal for the federal government to retaliate against South Carolina workers for not unionizing and for electing a Republican governor?

Although manufacturers have long moved plants to nonunion states, the board noted that Boeing officials had, in internal documents and news interviews, specifically cited the strikes and potential future strikes as a reason for their 2009 decision to expand in South Carolina.

Boeing said it would “vigorously contest” the labor board’s complaint. “This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both N.L.R.B. and Supreme Court precedent,” said J. Michael Luttig, a Boeing executive vice president and its general counsel. “Boeing has every right under both federal law and its collective bargaining agreement to build additional U.S. production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region.”

It is highly unusual for the federal government to seek to reverse a corporate decision as important as the location of plant.

But ever since a Democratic majority took control of the five-member board after Mr. Obama’s election, the board has signaled that it would seek to adopt a more liberal, pro-union tilt after years of pro-employer decisions under President Bush. [Emphasis added.]

At some point, the costs of doing business outweigh the benefits. When government over-regulation is considered as a cost (as it must be), and when government recognizes no legitimate limits on its authority to regulate, it will quickly drives companies, even large ones like Boeing, out of business.

Imagine if the government tried to tell you where you could have a job or a business, and where you couldn't? If they can do it to Boeing, why shouldn't they do it to you? This is a clear case of government picking the winners and losers in the marketplace. Winners: Washington state union workers and union bosses. Losers, South Carolina non-union workers, Boeing, airlines who buy Boeing aircraft, and passengers who have to pay higher prices to fly about those aircraft in order to cover the cost of those higher manufacturing costs. That's a lot of losers.

UPDATE: More at Marathon Pundit.

UPDATED: Why They Hate Trig Palin

Every politician makes political appearances with their kids. Every candidate makes campaign appearances and produces campaign materials that include their kids. The Clintons did it with Chelsea, the Obamas do it with their daughters, I did it with my kids.

But one politician -- just one -- has taken flack for appearing with one -- just one! -- of her kids. That politician is former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. And the child they hate to see her with is her youngest, Trig, who has Down Syndrome.

Make no mistake. The left hates Trig Palin:

Now Wonkette is at it again, in an even more crude manner, this time authored by 2010 Georgetown grad  Jack Stuef, Greatest Living American: A Children’s Treasury of Trig Crap On His Birthday.

Replete with PhotoShops of Trig next to a pulsating pole dancer (image right), and links to videos in which various Democrats mock Trig in profanity-laced tirades, Stuef has a good laugh with text such as this:

Today is the day we come together to celebrate the snowbilly grifter’s magical journey from Texas to Alaska to deliver to the America the great gentleman scholar Trig Palin. Is Palin his true mother? Or was Bristol? (And why is it that nobody questions who the father is? Because, either way, Todd definitely did it.) It doesn’t matter. What matters is that we are privileged to live in a time when we can witness the greatest prop in world political history...

What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded.

Wonkette is no fly-by-night outfit.  Here is how it describes itself on its Advertising page:

Wonkette.com is a top 5,000 site and No. 63 Technorati blog that reaches over 1 million monthly unique visitors, 88% of which are in the U.S. The site is wildly popular among a mostly male, very affluent and well educated adult crowd. The typical visitor reads Gawker and subscribes to the Economist and Vanity Fair.

Winner of three consecutive Bloggies and a regular source of outrageous quotes and jokes for the political class, Wonkette is Washington's non-stop campaign cocktail party.

Wonkette is a sick publication.  But it sure is popular with the liberal D.C. crowd.

Outrageous. Some some folks complained to the advertisers on that site, and three of them pulled their ads. Papa John's, Huggies and Vanguard. The editors at Wonkette defend the post:

“We beat up on Sarah Palin’s craven use of her son as a political prop. Child protective services should take Trig away.”

“On whose account are you requesting that Jack Stuef remove a post mocking Sarah Palin’s well-documented use of her special needs child as a political prop?..."

It's easy to see that the left hates Sarah Palin with the hot, hot fire of a thousand suns. And the real reason for this hatred is Trig. They hate Trig with every fiber of their being. They hate him with a passion beyond description. Murder would not satisfy their hatred of Trig, because they hate most of all the fact that this baby was ever born.

If Sarah Palin had aborted Trig, she would be a hero to the left. But she kept him, she loves him, Down Syndrome and all. And they hate that.

The abortion ethic holds that only the perfect baby is worthy to be born. The abortion ethic holds that only the wealthy baby is worthy to be born. Trig stands as a living rebuke to the pro-aborts, who, in him, are revealed not to be pro-choice at all, but only pro-abortion. Trig Palin, by simply living, is a testament to the dignity and sanctity of all human life. The pro-abort left cannot abide, and cannot tolerate, his witness.

And so they make up lies and excuses for their hatred about Sarah Palin's "exploitation" of her son. Of course, if Trig was never seen in her materials and appearances, they would claim that she was ashamed of him, that she was hiding him. It's not that they see Trig that enrages them; it is that Trig lives at all. Modern liberalism is a philosophy of hatred, of jealousy, of death. The left's reaction to Trig Palin is the logical expression of that philosophy.

UPDATE: Ace of Spades HQ has more (H/T: Cold Fury):

But in fact we have seen plenty of some other politicians' kids. To some extent, every politician uses kids as "props" in the sense that they all know that kids = warm feeling. On the other hand, showing your kids is just normal. It's your life, after all, and you're selling not just your policies but the sum total of your life experiences.

I wouldn't attack Barack Obama for granting Access Hollywood exclusive interviews with his daughters. I most assuredly would not attack his daughters, who I assume just do what daddy says.

But the left feels differently. Because they never ask the shoe-on-the-other-foot question. They don't think that applies to them -- they are very comfortable, and very accustomed, to double-standards that work perpetually in their favor and vindictively against their opponents. [Emphasis in orginal.]

David Bereit "The Tipping Point" Benefit for Lake County Right to Life

I was the warm-act for David last Thursday night.

Atlas Shrugged: Four Stars

I always know, when I read the reviews panning a movie I've been looking forward to, that I'm going to enjoy it. This rule proved true for me again in seeing Atlas Shrugged Part I.

Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart

Directed by Paul Johanssonn (who also plays the mysterious John Galt), working from a screenplay by John Aglialoro and Brian Patrick O'Toole, faithfully based on the 1957 novel by Ayn Rand, the film follows the efforts of the beautiful Dagny Taggart (wonderfully played by Taylor Schilling), the youngest, and most competent, scion of the ancient Taggart dynasty of railroad barons. Dagny must fight lobbyists, the legislature, her older brother James's (Matthew Marsden) managerial incompetence, and the mysterious disappearances of the best thinkers and producers in the country to save her family's railroad.

Joining her in her efforts is steel magnate Henry Rearden (Grant Bowler), the target of the lobbyists and his competitors due to his innovative development of a new, lighter, stronger and cheaper steel that he calls "Rearden Metal". Faced with steel suppliers who don't make timely delivery on orders, Dagny engages the controversial Rearden to manufacture new rails using his much-criticized new metal.

Grant Bowler as Henry Rearden

The setting is a dystopic 2016 (which might actually look this bad, if President Obama is re-elected) in which skyrocketing gas prices due to the complete political collapse of the Middle East has rendered both commercial aviation, much of trucking and even private automobiles unfeasibly expensive; railroads have re-emerged as the primary form of transportation of both freight and passengers. It is against this backdrop, in which the only remaining nationwide railroad -- the final wavering prop of the country's internal transportation network -- must be preserved. If only the short-sighted lobbyists and bureaucrats of Washington can be persuaded not to tax and regulate every remaining successful business into bankruptcy in an effort to feed the poor and unproductive who have been thrown out of work because of prior rounds of taxation and regulation.

Rebecca Wisocky does an outstanding turn as Rearden's loathsome wife, Lillian. Rounding out the cast are excellent performances by Grant Beckel as Ellis Wyatt, Jsu Garcia as the enigmatic playboy Francisco D'Anconia, Edi Gathegi as Eddie Willers, Michael Lerner as Wesley Mouch, Patrick Fischler as Paul Larkin, and Armin Shimmerman as Dr. Potter.

Even in 1957, Rand foresaw much of today's liberal trends in which no enterprise is too small or too local for the federal government to get involved in, no tax is too high, no regulation too intrusive, and no bureaucrat spouting pieties about the good of "the people" and trying to legislate "equality" is above lining his own pockets and serving his own interests at the public expense.

This is not an action movie. It is long on dialog, features virtually no nudity, only one momentary and discreet sex scene, and no violence at all, and very little suspense. It is a movie about thinking men and women, for thinking men and women. It is therefore sure to tank at the box office.

And yet, there is a very urgent sense of suspense attached to this movie. It's not about how the movie ends. This film is the first of a planned trilogy to adapt Rand's 1100 page novel. But even those who haven't read the book will not find the conclusion too surprising, if those movies ever get made.

No, the real suspense generated by the story of Atlas Shrugged is not how the characters will get out of their crisis. Instead, the nail-biting question is how the real America of today might hope to get out of the crisis we now face. Atlas Shrugged offers an important suggestion: stop discouraging and penalizing those who make money, create jobs, produce goods, and drive the economy. We must stop discouraging and penalizing these people before we succeed completely and drive them all out of business. And then, with no businesses left to provide us with jobs or goods, where will we be?

And so it's in the entrepreneurial spirit of John Galt that I've decided to pay homage to this story in the most practical fashion: I've opened a new Cafe Press shop! Order your t-shirt today!

Sandy Cole: Eat French Fries, Go To Jail

13 Republicans Help Pass Trans Fat Ban

My erstwhile opponent, Republican Sandy Cole, she of the "proven conservative leadership", joined Illinois Democrats and 12 other Republicans to pass a ban on trans fats in Illinois. Other Republicans voting for the ban include Cole's fellow Planned Parenthood beneficiaries Sid Mathias, Skip Saviano, and Tom Cross. Because of course, a social liberal is after all a social liberal:

Am I surprised that some of our Republican lawmakers – including the House Minority Leader himself – are supporting one of the most radical leftwing bills ever? No, I’m definitely not surprised. It’s hardly the first time it’s been impossible to tell the Republicans from the Democrats in Illinois.

Last year House Republicans sealed the defeat of school choice legislation.

And it’s been House GOP lawmakers who have kept rank-and-file Republicans from having a voice and a vote in their own State GOP. Tom Cross and his lieutenants have been stonewalling SB35 (formerly SB600) for years.

So we’ve got Republican lawmakers who won’t let low income families choose better schools. They won’t let Republican voters choose their own party leaders. And now they even want to take away choices about what you eat.

When it comes to banning trans fats – a reasonable person might say our state has bigger fish to fry.

Which leaves only one question: how many years will people violating the ban be thrown in jail for? Sandy wants a 100% ban on trans fats, for how many years will she put people in jail? Sandy Cole wants you to go to jail for eating McDonalds fries! Call her and ask for how many years.

Why is that I just can't work up much enthusiasm for the "health-conscious" nanny-statism of liberal elites who get elected by taking money from people who kill babies for a living?

With our state on the verge of bankruptcy, this is really what the legislature is spending its time on?

Caution: Ayn Rand

As regular readers of this blog know, I recently read Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged for the first time, and am enthusiastically looking forward to the release of Part One of the new film based on the book. I found the book in many ways to be compelling.

Some of my devout friends have expressed dismay at these expressions of mine, fearing that I am advocating for Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I'm not. This essay captures my views on the topic nicely:

In truth, Rand’s philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion, was so monstrous that she was unable to live it personally even though she boldly and often claimed that she did. As Charles Murray (who is a Rand fan) notes, there is much to admire (for some people) in her works and novels; however, her philosophy is simply not something that can be consistently lived, and to try is to invite a life of misery and madness.

I would certainly not begrudge anyone who enjoyed Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. I myself read them as a teenager and enjoyed both, and to this day they are two of the books which most encapsulate what is wrong with liberalism today.

Read it all.

Researcher: Liberals Angrier, More Racist Than Conservatives

A researcher at Northwestern University School of Law finds that liberals are more racist and less happy than conservatives:

I first show that respondents who express traditionally racist views (on segregation, interracial marriage, and inborn racial abilities) tend to support greater income redistribution. Traditional racists also tend to oppose free-market capitalism and its consequences, wanting the government to guarantee jobs for everyone and fix prices, wages, and profits. Next, I report a similar pattern for those who express intolerance for unpopular groups on the fifteen Stouffer tolerance questions (regarding racists, homosexuals, communists, extreme militarists, and atheists). Those who express less tolerance for unpopular groups tend to favor income redistribution and oppose capitalism.

...I then explore an alternative hypothesis, showing that, compared to anti-redistributionists, strong redistributionists have about two to three times higher odds of reporting that in the prior seven days they were angry, mad at someone, outraged, sad, lonely, and had trouble shaking the blues. Similarly, anti-redistributionists had about two to four times higher odds of reporting being happy or at ease. Not only do redistributionists report more anger, but they report that their anger lasts longer. When asked about the last time they were angry, strong redistributionists were more than twice as likely as strong opponents of leveling to admit that they responded to their anger by plotting revenge. Last, both redistributionists and anti-capitalists expressed lower overall happiness, less happy marriages, and lower satisfaction with their financial situations and with their jobs or housework. [Emphasis added.]

Housework?

Another Good Reason to De-Fund Planned Parenthood

They're not licensed!

McHenry County Blogger (and former GOP State Representative, and former libertarian gubernatorial candidate) Cal Skinner made a Freedom of Information Act request of the Illinois Department of Public Health to see all the licenses for Planned Parenthood clinics in Illinois.

As it turns out, there are no such licenses. No wonder they're so adamantly opposed to the regulation of abortion clinics!

Cross-posted from Lake County Right to Life blog.)

On The Odd Behavior of Atheists

(This is post number 2,100 to this blog.)

I just received a note in my email, a comment on a two-year-old post to this blog about why I believe in God, from someone who identified himself as an atheist.

He didn't like my arguments, and wanted to leave his opinion. Well, that's what the combox is for. But when I went to the post to see his comment, it wasn't there. My best guess is that he must have deleted it himself.

Just today, by coincidence, a friend of mine made an interesting point to me. Walking through a cemetery, he noticed that most of the people buried there had been dead for many more years than they had been alive.

If atheists are right, thought my friend, then it seems logical that the ultimate purpose for human life is... death. You might live 70, 80, even 100 years. But you'll be dead, according to the atheists, for hundreds of thousands, even millions or billions of years, eventually.

And yet, with so little time left to them, many atheists, including my abortive correspondent, spend some part of that time arguing about something that they know doesn't exist.

As a Christian, I know I'm only taking a tiny (negligible, really) slice out of the eternity that I will continue to live when I discuss my faith, which is real, rich, and enduring. But an atheist -- if he really believes what he is saying -- is making a far, far larger investment of his time, in terms of a percentage of his existence, in arguing in favor of nothing.

There's something wrong with that. If you're so sure that there's nothing after death, why are you spending your Monday nights on something so trivial as visiting Catholic blogs to tell the bloggers that they're wrong? Isn't life any more precious to you than that? If you're right, you have so very little of it.

How Mitt Romney Can Earn My Vote

I heard Mitt Romney speak here in Lake County last fall. Somewhere, there is a picture of him with me in it, but I don't have a copy.

Romney make a very good impression in person. As well he might; he's been running for President for four years.

In his remarks at the time, it was clear to me that he would certainly be running for President, and now he's taken the step of announcing an exploratory committee:



But Romney is not my first choice. Or even my second, or my third.

For me, Romney has some important negatives.

1. Bill Clinton once said that, "Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love." I think there may be some truth to this. In each presidential election year, we seem to nominate the candidate whose turn it is. In 1980, Reagan had been a very close second place for the nomination four years earlier. In 1988, Bush (41) was the sitting Vice President. In 1996, Dole was the senior Republican senator, and a former nominee for VP (in 1976). In 2000, Bush (43) was the son of the most recent Republican President. And in 2008, McCain was the guy who'd come in second for the nomination in 2000.

In 2012, the two candidates who can best argue that it's their turn are Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 VP nominee, and Gov. Mitt Romney, who finished second to McCain in the 2008 nominating race.

I don't believe that this "next-turnism" (if I may coin a phrase), serves us well. To really earn my vote, Romney will need to show in his campaign that his ideas and policies are the ones we need today, in 2012, to set America on the right course.

2. Romney, clearly, is running a campaign primarily as a fiscal conservative. But his fiscal record as a governor isn't as conservative as one might wish, and his governing record on social issues is, from a conservative standpoint, abysmal. This is the man who passed Romneycare as Governor of Massachusetts, and the man who surrendered in the fight against gay "marriage". On abortion, he claimed to have had a pro-life epiphany while in office, but did nothing to advance the pro-life cause, and was in fact an obstacle to its advance.

To earn my vote, Romney will need to credibly show what he's learned as a governor, what he should have done differently; he cannot run on his experience as a governor and also run away from it, both at the same time.

3. Too, Romney needs to define himself on social issues. Too often, especially here in Illinois, conservatives try to campaign only as fiscal conservatives and leave the social issues unmentioned. This tends to lead to having their opponents demagogue their positions, and define them on these very important matters.

Instead, to really earn my vote, I need to see Mitt Romney define himself on the social issues; more than just to say "I'm pro-life," but to explain why a person should be pro-life, and what pro-life measures a president Romney would seek to implement. This is called "leadership," and Republicans claim to be good at it.

4. Finally, to earn my vote, I need to see Mitt Romney identify the problems our nation is facing, and what his solutions are. I need more than just "President Obama's policies have failed." That's fine and true as far as it goes, but we have more problems than just those created in the past two years.

I need to hear from Mitt Romney an acknowledgment that it's a problem that 1.5 million babies are lost to abortion each year, and what he intends to do about it. I need to hear him explain to the American people how our country is harmed by the breakdown of the traditional family, and what his remedy is. I need to know that he recognizes that the presence of 20 million illegal aliens is a burden on our economy that we can ill afford, and I need to know his solution to the problem. I need to hear Mitt Romney's approach to fighting America's enemies and using our military.

In short, I need to see Mitt Romney campaign on all the issues facing our nation, and not just the ones he thinks make him look good.

And if he were to get through the entire campaign without mentioning his hair once, that wouldn't be a bad thing, either.

Who Is This Obama Person, Anyway?

It really does seem that we know ever less and less about our President (H/T: Stormbringer):

What she and fellow investigator Neil Sankey unearthed was a nugget that could have ended the career of a George Bush or a Sarah Plain: Barack Obama had been using a social security number issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a state in which he never lived or even visited at that time in his life.

... This being the case, I asked Daniels to guide me through the data mine field and help me ascertain what we know for sure about the world’s best-known social security number--042-68-4425.

“All I can say,” says Daniels of 042-68-4425, “is that it’s phony and [Obama] has been using it, with it first appearing on his selective service document in 1980.”

Daniels sent me a copy of the hand-written application of the individual who held the number immediately before Obama’s, 042-68-4424. The applicant, Thomas Wood, died at age nineteen which is why his information is available.

Wood's Social Security number was issued sometime between March and May of 1977. Obama would turn sixteen in August of that year. Woods lived on Glenview Drive in Newington, Connecticut, the state from which all “042s” applied. Obama lived in Hawaii.

President Promises To Use Anyone's Good Ideas

...unless the idea is school choice!

Dems: If We Can't Fund Abortion, We Won't Fund Anything

I never doubted it would come to this.  If they can't fund the nation's largest abortion provider, they'll shut down the government.   Isn't 53 million innocents lost enough?  Do they have to involve you and I in it as well?  Jake Tapper has the story:

His meeting with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., having concluded, President Obama came to the White House briefing room this evening to report “additional progress” had been made and “differences have been narrowed.”

But outstanding issues remain, he cautioned, ones so important – to both sides - the president said he wouldn’t express “wild optimism” that there will be a deal.

Democratic sources tell ABC News that things “feel better now” in terms of a deal being cut, but the major sticking point remains the GOP rider prohibiting any federal funding to Planned Parenthood or any of its affiliates.

...“The stickiest issue will end up being Planned Parenthood.”

The House voted earlier this year to de-fund Planned Parenthood but 41 Democrats in the Senate already have said they would not support legislation ending funding to Planned Parenthood, making the matter one that could be filibustered. The White House has said the president would not agree to any ban on funding to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is already prohibited from using any federal funds for abortion-related services. Officials of the organization say more than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood clinics do has nothing to do with abortion, but rather focuses on women’s health services such as pap smears and breast cancer screening.

Abortion opponents say federal funding for other services means money freed up for the purposes of conducting abortions, which they regard as ending human life.

The claim that the bulk of Planned Parenthood's operation is not abortion is simply a lie.  A boldfaced, easily disproved lie.  And it's also been proved that they don't do breast cancer screenings, either, but they're still harping on that one as well.

That President Obama would take this to the brink to protect Planned Parenthood comes as no surprise.  This is the most pro-abortion president in history.

(Cross posted from the Northern Illinois Patriots blog.)

A "Change" In Campaign Themes

A Thought About Koran Burnings

I had an idea about burning the Koran.

It is, of course a highly disrespectful act.  It is discourteous.  It is even a hostile act. But hey, so are murder and war.

But as the Bible tells us (in Ecc 3:1), "All things have their season, and in their times all things pass under heaven."

It really seems to have a big effect on some Muslims, when one guy on the far side of the world burns a Koran. How many people have they killed? 20?

What if we turn the tables? Instead of them killing people in reaction to a Koran being burned, what if we were to tell them that we will burn Korans until the killing stops?

What if we were to say, the American people will burn one Koran every day until the killing stops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya?

When they kill people, somehow it gets blamed on a guy in Florida who wasn't anywhere near the killing. It's a childish sort of "see what you made me do?" defense. Well, if those are the rules of the game, let's play by them. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

We could put a weregild on every American killed by a Muslim. We'll burn three Korans for every enlisted man they kill, five for every officer, and ten for every civilian. And until they stop killing each other, we'll burn one every day.

They claim to care about the burning of a Koran. They claim it's important to them. They're willing to kill to avenge the burning of a Koran. But what will those people do to prevent Korans from being burned? Could it be possible that they might be constrained to stop killing out of respect for their holy book, which they believe was written by Allah?

Or is it possible that they'll use any excuse to kill, and any little thing at all will do as provocation, so that they can shift the blame for their wanton killing onto someone else?

To ask the question is to answer it.

Francisco d'Anconia's Voice Mail

Join me in seeing this movie, Friday, April 15th, at the Marcus Cinema in Gurnee!

If Only Teachers Were Allowed To Marry

This is the school district my kids would be in, if we weren't homeschooling them:

A Round Lake-area schoolteacher has been arrested on a warrant that claims he sexually assaulted four children under the age of 13, Round Lake Beach Police officials said Tuesday.

Manuel Reyes, 55, was arrested Saturday at his home in the 9900 block of 69th Street in Kenosha after being charged with six counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, Deputy Police Chief Rich Chiarello said.
Advertisement

Reyes is held in the Kenosha County Jail on the $100,000 warrant, but is expected to go in front of a judge on Thursday to determine if he will waive extradition, Chiarello said.

If he waives extradition, he can be transferred to Lake County jail and could be in bond court as early as Friday, Chiarello said.

Reyes, a third-grade teacher at Raymond Ellis Elementary School in Round Lake Beach, allegedly inappropriately touched four victims under the age of 13 in an attempt to sexually gratify himself between Aug. 18, 2010 and March 23, 2011, Chiarello said.

Read more: http://dailyherald.com/article/20110405/news/704059955/#ixzz1IfoD84R9

When priests are accused, we're told it's because of celibacy. But public school teachers are statistically twice as likely as priests to abuse children, what's their excuse?

Videos, We Got Videos

Coming soon to a nation near you:

(H/T: Pro Ecclesia.)

Where bioethicists get their authority (they make it up):

(H/T: Reflections of a Paralytic.)

An impassioned reminder about freedom of speech:

(H/T: Brutally Honest.)

Finally, the most beautiful debate on abortion you ever saw (and some of these wonderful young people go to my church!):

(H/T: What Does The Prayer Really Say?.)

The Path to Prosperity: America's two futures, visualized

Christian U.S. Military Chaplains Threatened With Courts Martial If They Teach Christian Morality

Christian Chaplains serving with the U.S. Military have been threatened with courts martial if they preach Christian morality (H/T: The Lair):

Christian Chaplains who speak out against homosexual sin can be accused of "harassment" by homosexuals and face disciplinary action simply for voicing their religious views outside the "context" of their religious ministry.

[Chaps' interpretation: The phrase "vocational reflection" is not-so-subtle code language meaning "reconcile with homosexuality or find another line of work." The phrase "do NOT tolerate harassment" is code language for "don't speak against sin, for ANY reason, or you the Chaplain will be disciplined for quoting the Bible, and the homosexual protected."] More fine print from the text from the Army's presentation is directly quoted as follows:

...

ARMY: "You may, in appropriate circumstances and within the limitations of law and policy, express your moral or religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation. However, you may NOT make statements detrimental to good order and discipline and must obey lawful orders. You do NOT have the right to refuse duty or duty assignments based on a moral objection to another's sexual orientation."

[Chaps' Interpretation: the phrase 'appropriate circumstances' will soon mean ONLY in the context of Sunday chapel, thus Chaplains can be punished for private counseling, or speech outside of chapel, or speech inside chapel on Monday through Saturday, just as I was punished in writing 3 times for quoting the Bible in optional Saturday chapel services.]

ARMY: "You remain obligated to follow orders that involve interaction with others who are homosexual even if an unwillingness to do so is based on strong, sincerely held moral or religious beliefs. As expressed in the Manual for Courts-Martial regarding a Soldier's obligation to obey orders: 'the dictates of a person's conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.'"

[Chaps' Interpretation: the phrase 'lawful order' will mean ANYTHING ANTI-CHRISTIAN COMMANDERS WISH and judges will back up the Commander, not the Chaplain. I know from personal experience, when a Navy Judge said my Navy Commander could punish me, a chaplain, for disobeying "lawful orders" because I was quote "worshiping in public."]

Bottom Line: Army Chaplains will now be punished at court-martial for "disobedience" of "lawful orders" if they dare to express their religious views about homsexual sin outside of Sunday chapel.

MILITARY CHAPLAINS FACE CHARGES OF "HATE SPEECH"

The Pray In Jesus Name Project was featured in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week, with YOUR fax petition campaign to Congress getting noticed. Reporter Ann Rogers interviewed military chaplains who fear persecution by the Obama Administration, especially now that open homosexual service is being fast-tracked in violation of the rights of many Christian troops.

"The majority of 3,000 chaplains are theologically conservative Christians, many of whom worry that they will be accused of hate speech if they preach that same-sex relationships are sinful," the paper reports.

"The Pray in Jesus Name Project, which supports conservative chaplains, has called the Pentagon guidelines the 'plan to purge Christians' from chaplaincy.

"'Now the Obama Administration is officially on record pressuring chaplains to quit the service if they cannot 'reconcile' with homosexual sin that violates their Christian conscience,' said a petition on its website.

"The 'purge' is a clause that says chaplains have an option to leave the military that isn't open to others who object to serving with gay troops. They can ask their faith group to withdraw its endorsement, which would trigger a discharge.

"Retired Brig. Gen. Douglas E. Lee, a former Army chaplain who endorses for six conservative Presbyterian bodies, is less alarmist, but shares the concern that protection of religious freedom may erode.

"The fundamental issue for us is morality, but the debate is being purposely framed as a civil rights or a discrimination issue," he said.

"Homosexuality is 'just another sin that affects soldiers, airmen, guardians and Marines. However no other category that we would declare as sin is ... claiming civil rights to be a serial adulterer.'

The battle for "gay rights" is really a battle against religious faith, and contrary views will not be -- are not being -- tolerated.

How Can We "Win The Future" When We're Losing the Present?

(H/T: Marathon Pundit.)

Pay To Play

Gov. Quinn Nominates Supporter to Key Post

Illinois' premier pro-abortion activist, Terry Cosgrove, Executive Director of Personal PAC, claims credit for electing Democrat Pat Quinn as Illinois Governor last November, and well he might. His organization's vile, lying, misleading and mean-spirited ads, mailings and calls slandered Republican Bill Brady -- and many other candidates besides.

Is Governor Quinn grateful? You bet your sweet bippy!

Last week, Governor Pat Quinn nominated abortion rights leader Terry Cosgrove to fill an opening on Illinois' Human Rights Commission. Next Thursday, Cosgrove's nomination will be heard before the Senate Executive Appointments Committee.

Cosgrove, the 58 year old CEO of Personal PAC, plans to continue directing his pro-abortion political action committee while he serves part-time on the commission. Personal PAC's generous $400,000 campaign donation to Governor Quinn's campaign in 2010 is stirring another round of Quinn "pay to play" buzz.

Cosgrove's Facebook photo (right) is pretty indicative of his pro-Quinn, anti-Brady partiality in the 2010 governor's race. You've got to wonder how impartial he'd be voting on the Human Rights Commission, don't you?

Certainly, no one could reasonably hope that Cosgrove would support human rights for all humans. Cosgrove's vision of "human rights" is something that mere humanity doesn't qualify you for.

And Quinn's vision of public service is something that mere public service isn't a qualification for. In both cases, something... extra is required.

And, oh yeah, this is the same guy who sent out this mailing about me during my campaign in a Republican primary.

And Another Thing

Why Is Komen Funding Planned Parenthood if They Don't Do Mammograms?

Six More Years