For the sake of the children

Tracy started a very thoughful discussion on partial birth abortion Wednesday over at Anti-Strib. I bring this up because there were some comments made in the discussion that tie into what I am about to talk about.

MN Education Reform News Scholars Notebook tells us that the MN Legislature is considering the possibility of mandating mental health screening for all pre-school children. This would require that all children be screened at least once before the age of 3. BEFORE THE AGE OF 3 PEOPLE!!!!! The "logic" of this plan is to try to identify "at risk" behavior as early as possible and administer the appropriate medications to control said behavior. What kind of behavior you ask? From EdWatch MN:

"An eligible child is one who has “been removed from child care, Head Start, or preschool for behavioral reasons or is at risk of being so removed” or “been exposed to parental depression or other mental illness.”

So if your child gets suspended for misbehaving, "drug 'em". Parents have depression "drug the kid"....the worst part is this is part of the No Child Left Behind Act!

Then we had two letters to the editor of the Fishwrap from Tuesday where the authors are advocating that government mandate pre-screening of all infants for genetic diseases. The "logic" for this intrusion??? It's "for the children"....which leads me back to the abortion discussion. Along the course of discussion, one of the commenters mentioned that if there is testing that shows that the fetus has a "terminal illness" (the example was hydrocephalis) then maybe we should allow a 3rd trimester abortion. My problem with that is where do we stop? Do you test for Tay Sachs disease (a genetic disorder that effects people of Jewish lineage)? How about sickle cell disease? Or hemophelia or AIDS? If we test for these kinds of diseases, do we test for physical or mental handicaps? If we do that, do we choose to abort babies who have Down Syndrome? Where does it stop?

I got pregnant (late in life) with the Junior Logician. As part of my pre-natal care, I was given the option to test for Down Syndrome in utero. I chose not to in part because of the risks to my unborn child and partly due to the fact that I felt that if I did have a Down Syndrome child (which was a distinct possibility due to a number of reasons) I would handle it. I want to stress that this was an optional test!

What strikes me as odd about this is that the same people who are advocating the intrusion of government in this medical condition are the very same ones that demand that government stay out of it when they choose to kill their unborn child! Where is the logic in that?

Update: This via the Chicago Sun Times.....genetic manipulation to determine the gender of your baby. Again, just where does this end?

Can we PLEASE question their patriotism now????

For years Republicans have been "scolded" for questioning the patriotism of the anti-war left. Can we finally question it? Why you ask? This story in the Prairie Pravda will tell you.

"The concert, dubbed "Bring 'Em Home Now!" will be held at the Hammerstein Ballroom on March 20, the 3rd anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Rufus Wainwright and Bright Eyes will also perform, organizers said Wednesday."

Sigh.....when is it time for us to finally start questioning their patriotism?????

When push comes to shove...

I got a strange phone call the other night. A recorded voice asked me if I approved of the President's handling of something or another and to press 1 for yes and 2 for no. Out of curiosity I pressed 1 and then the recorded voice asked me if I approved of the government's handling of a case that I have never heard of. I hung up on the call on principle. I refuse to participate in any unsolicited call that involves pre-recorded questions. If you really want to know what I think on an issue, have the decency to ask me in person!

In reading today's Washington Post, I found out that I was on one end of a push poll call. I have always found push polls to be odious at best and downright deceptive at the worst and I refuse to take part in them.

Attention all you candidates and pollsters - ditch the push poll! Polling is a dubious science as it is and push polling is it's seemy underbelly. We have all heard the horror stories out of the 2000 Republican primaries in South Carolina. You don't want your campaign tainted by that...do you????

Rome, the Pilgrims, de Tocqueville...and hogs.

Late last night I was talking to one of my clients. He is in his late 70's. He made a comment that what we needed were more programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration from the New Deal.He felt that with all welfare recipients working and getting a paycheck would be a real boon. I mentioned that the reason that the Great Depression came about was that the Federal reserve horrible monetary policy. And that a great many of the New Deal programs and more Fed Res policy made it incredibly difficult for employers to create jobs.I sent him to a great site on the Great Depression and how it all came about because of government meddling and was made worse because of government programs.
I then saw a link asking if we are going the way of Rome ? It started by telling a story about wild hogs and the seemingly impossible task of capturing them. It then told the history of Rome going from a republic to an empire to a welfare state to ruin and finally to eclipse.
And as I read the where Emperor Aurelian started to make government bread an inherited right (welfare rights in other words. Sound familiar? How do you feel that there are people who say that other people have a right to your money that preempts your right to your money? Just curious. And that the government does this by threatening you with confiscation or jail or both if you don't fall in line.)
And as the story unfolded, I was reminded of the real story of the Pilgrims (which had not been known until the discovery of Gov. William Bradford's lost diaries) and their one growing and harvest season experiment with socialism (that nearly killed them).
I was then reminded of de Tocqueville's comments on this experiment he called Anglo-America. He traveled America in the early 1830's and mused that this great experiment would last just up until the time that people realized that they could take what belonged to their neighbors by whom they voted into office.
Just look at the Katrina hurricane people (I refuse to call them victims as they chose to live in an area that was at or below sea level and prone to hurricanes). And how they demand your money to pay for their choices.
And GWB is giving them $200,000,000,000 of your money. And he's considered uncompassionate because he's not taking enough of your money, by force, to give to them. As the article states, the government can only give what it first takes.
Read the article, fellow Roman.

VETO!!!!! Part II

Last night I was listening to Frank Gaffney and John Podhoretz on Hugh Hewitt. The topic, as Frank is an expert on national security issues and John is a political columnist of the first rank , was the UAE port deal. And always remember, in politics, perception is reality. Gaffney and Podhoretz interviews are on Radio Blogger. Read them.
Right now I'm listening to Rush and he is vainly trying to support GWB in this.And he's going into minutiae. And when you have to explain a position in this much detail you've already lost the argument. (This reminds me of the "Guest Worker Progam" where I got a number of emailed talking points from the National Republican Committee as to the GWP NOT being an amnesty. When the RNC thinks we need that many talking points, it's an amnesty. Perception=reality).
Rush. Let it go. Now! You're morphing from an apologist to a syncophant.
Podhoretz says that in this situation there is no Krauthammer strategy (Harriet Meirs, ex SCUS appointee, could just take her name out of consideration). Gaffney blends the security with the politics. And he also refers to the security issues with the spread of radical Islam into Africa and its financing centers in the Middle East.
And again, here is GWB talking veto, and even those who usually support him are saying that a veto WILL be overridden.
There is NO upside to this for GWB, it's all a down side for him and he's handing a very timely political story to the lefties who, as Podhoretz says , are naked on national security to this point and the President has given the Dems at least a loin cloth. And if that's not bad enough, he's got Jimmy Carter on his side! Now, that makes a point that will bring the real consevatives out in droves this fall! Hugh Hewitt was not aware that Jimmy was on board with GWB and he nearly swallowed his microphone when John McIntyre of Real Clear Politics laid that on him!
BTW, also read the Bill Frist and John McIntyre (Real Clear Politics )interviews on the Radio Blogger site, all on the UAE port deal.

Port Authority

I had not posted on this issue yet for a reason. Partly because I felt that I did not know enough about the subject to speak on the issue and partly because it has been covered so very thoroughly by Michelle Malkin. My initial gut reaction is that this was not a good thing. That reaction was cemented today when I heard this on my way into the office this morning.

President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.
But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.

Why am I suddenly overwhelmed with the urge to sing "Whatever it is, I'm against it"? For those of you who are much younger than the Lady Logician, that song is one of the classic Marx Brothers songs. Grouch Marx opens the movie "Horse Feathers" with it.

I don't care what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is I'm against it!- Groucho Marx in "Horse Feathers"

If Jimmy Carter is for it....whatever it is, I'm against it!

I see where my friend Amendment X has chimed in on the issue as well. I share his disappointment with the President on this issue. He can't be bothered to veto any out of control spending but he can be moved to veto this????? Unreal!

The ABC's of why government doesn't work

I like simple. Truth usually is and I blogged on the elements of truth that I've found .
Here is an excellent article on why federal, or for that matter state subsidies, "initiatives" and the like have not and will not work. Ever!
Here in Minnesota the ethanol subsidy is nothing more than politicians buying farmers votes with your hard earned money. Period! Ethanol is a waste. Period. It doesn't work nearly as efficiently as oil.Period.
And yet, with all that evidence, state and federal governments just keep on spending and subsidizing ethanol.
And I'm amazed that people just keep on electing those who keep all this gross waste and stolen liberty in force.

Education California

Why am I not surpirsed that this story comes out of San Francisco?

"For the politically correct Bay Area parent, the "Curious George" children's books are a minefield of cultural horrors through which to tiptoe. Imperialism. Animal abuse. Bad parenting.

"The books are really irresponsible to me. It's sickening, really," said Robin Roth, managing editor of www.arkonline.com, an animal welfare Web site.

Roth, a high school English teacher in Los Angeles, writes on her animal rights Web site that "Curious George" reveals "the sinister side of a corrupt wildlife trade with perilous roots in Western imperialism." When the mischievous George is sent to jail, "the picture of the forlorn little primate alone in his cell conjures haunting images of countless monkeys lingering in laboratories, suffering silently and alone."

Oh my head hurts!!!!! Make it stop!!!!!

HEY LADY - here is a hot tip for you. Curious George is a story - fiction - made up - NOT REALITY!!!!!

What is it going to take for us to walk away from the land of the "perpetually offended" and into the land of reality? This is a classic piece of children's literature. What's next? "Make Way for Ducklings"??????

Addicted to eggs

I cringed with every mention of the term "initiative" from GWB in the SOTU. And non-thinkers immediately took on the form of an intellectual bobble head doll when the President said "We are addicted to oil". I've blogged on the failures of ethanol and all other "alternative" energy ideas that are just an absolute waste of taxpayers money. If these energy sources that have been explored over the past three decades were economically viable, they would need no subsidy.
Dr. Walter E. Williams as written a article on the subject of the term "oil addiction".

Education Minnesota

Saturdays St Paul Pioneer Press had an intesting article about the school system that everyone needs to read. It is about how one school in St Paul handled cultural conflict.

Executive Director Bill Wilson said he had concerns for some time about how to reconcile the school's art curriculum with the views of Muslim families, but the departure of the art teacher at the end of last school year gave him a window to act.

This fall, he hired ArtStart, a St. Paul-based nonprofit organization, to offer more options for about 150 kindergartners through second-graders, including visual arts and drumming. But parents were still upset that their children were drawing figures, Wilson said, and some pulled their children out of art class altogether.

Wilson then sat down with teacher and parent liaison Abdirahman Sheikh Omar Ahmad, who also is the imam at an Islamic center in Minneapolis, to work with ArtStart in determining how to meet state standards without running afoul of Muslim doctrine.

Pardon me?????? Since when did religious leaders have any say in what was taught in ANY school (other than a religious school)? And where are those very vocal advocates of "separation of church and state" that are screaming bloody murder any time a Christian parent tries to have a say in what their children are and are not taught (like with evolution)? Where are the advocates of diversity going to say when the Imam decides that (for example) GLBT issues are not to be taught because they "offend" Islam? Where does this stop?

Dave over at Downing World had a post on this and he raises a good point. He points out that educators and artists seem to have no problems with insulting Christians and Jews as often as possible, but two wrongs do not make a right. Our education system should be sensitive to what a parent is teaching their children at home (vis a vis religion) but if it is going to cater to one faith's religious beliefs then it needs to cater to all of them. You can not cater to just one because that religion happens to be the "politically-correct flavor of the day".

Building society like roads

I read and have linked Thomas Brewton's site "The View from 1776".
As a born again Christian, I'm aware that satan is incredibly subtle.
And so is the liberty stealing left. They can call themselves Liberals, Progressives, whatever, but they are still in the busness of running your life and stealing your liberty reminding me of a quote from C.S. Lewis:" Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. " And also from Daniel Webster" Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
An article that's been posted shows how that subtly works it way into so many aspects of American life, just like the Bible says a bit of yeast works its way throughout the whole batch.That the genesis of social engineering was the thought that human behavior can be constructed and directed just as a highway or roadway can be built from point A to point B.
Also notice that Teddy Roosevelt is not, repeat not a conservative-at all.

VETO!!!!!

GWB has finally found the courage to threaten a veto! Normally I'd say GREAT. However:
Is it a veto to really cut (not just slow down) federal spending? No.
Is it a veto to that will finally honor the Presidential oath of office and stop one of the myriad unConstitutional progams that have gone across his desk? Not this time.
His first ever veto is being threatened to be used to block any attempt to stop or prevent an Islamic nation from running our port facilities.
Even the most ardent GWB supporters are saying that this is just a suicide move politically.
And THIS is what will finally draw out a presidential veto?
What an absolutely incredible let down! Incredible!

Guns in SouthTexas..and it's not what you think

When you hear about guns in South Texas near Corpus Christi, the MSM would have you believe that only VP Cheney is carrying. Well what you didn't hear was this:
"Hey hysterical media chum suckers, if you want to obsess about a gun (or guns) in South Texas, why don’t you travel a little further southwest from Corpus Christi to Laredo where U.S. authorities just snatched ready-to-detonate IEDs, materials for making 33 more, military style grenades, 26 grenade triggers, large quantities of AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles, 1280 rounds of ammo, silencers, machine gun assembly kits, 300 primers, bullet proof vests, police scanners, sniper scopes, narcotics and cash from Mexican dope dealers? Now, Dave, there’s an all-beef patty for you and all the other reporters suffering from mad cow disease to sink your teeth into."
From Doug Giles at Townhall.com referring to Dave Gregory at NBC.

Amendment X (Oh yah. What's it mean again?)

I read Joseph Sobran (from Drudge) usually once a week. I don't always agree with him, but as I've said before, there is more to unite us than to divide us.
This weeks posting concerns the 10th Amendment, the last within the Bill of Rights, the one I use as my nom de plume. What I find interesting about the Bill of Rights was that the Founders and writers of the Constitution felt that the Constitution was complete on its face. But, there were those that wanted a very pointed explanation of what was and was not allowed. They wanted the guarantee spelled out that there would never be an imperial, far reaching and intrusive federal government.And therefore the Bill of Rights.
Here is a brief and on point history of the sorry state of what I reagard as the once but now faded and ignored linchpin of liberty here in the United States:

The Reactionary Utopian

February 2, 2006

PENUMBRAS, EMANATIONS, AND STUFF

by Joe Sobran

You could easily get the impression that the U.S. Supreme Court has banned public displays of the Tenth Amendment. Actually, this hasn’t happened, at least not yet. Anyway, adults can still read it in the privacy of their own homes, if they can lay hands on a copy. And in the age of the Internet, it would be hard to suppress completely.

But a conspiracy of silence, if observed by enough people, can be as effective as an outright ban. And since at least the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt, that lump of foul deformity, most employees of the Federal Government have tacitly agreed to avoid all mention of the Tenth, which encapsulates the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

The silence was broken in 1996 by Bob Dole, who, in a desperate attempt to salvage his losing presidential campaign, said he always carried a copy of the Tenth in his wallet. Not that anyone would have been led to suspect this from his long voting record.

The Tenth is often referred to as “the states’ rights amendment,” but that’s not quite accurate. It speaks of powers, not rights. It says that the powers that haven’t been “delegated” to the Federal Government in the Constitution are reserved to the individual states and the people.

This was an attempt to make the Constitution foolproof. Nice try! At the time, it may have seemed that nobody, not even a politician or a lawyer, could miss the point: The Federal Government could exercise only those powers listed in the Constitution. Whatever wasn’t authorized was forbidden. The basic list was found in Article I, Section 8. It was pretty specific: coining (not printing) money, punishing counterfeiters, declaring war, and so forth.

In principle, simple. Unfortunately, however, it runs up against the politician’s eternal credo: “In principle, I’m a man of principle. But in practice, I’m a practical man.”

So the politicians, all practical men, began their endless but fruitful search for powers other than those listed—“implied” powers that weren’t spelled out in the text, but were “necessary and proper” for the execution of the explicitly enumerated powers. The very practical Alexander Hamilton argued that a national bank was necessary and proper in this sense; but Thomas Jefferson hotly denied it, and soon the two men were wrangling over what “necessary and proper” meant, reaching an impasse over the word “and.”

Among the most creative interpreters of the Constitution was Abraham Lincoln, who found he needed all the implied powers he could get his hands on in order to prevent peaceful secession by the exercise of violence. As Professor Harry V. Jaffa approvingly puts it, Lincoln soon “discovered” a huge “reservoir of constitutional power” that suited his purpose. Nobody had discovered this “reservoir” before. Later such reservoirs would also be called “penumbras, formed by emanations.”

But the richest cache of penumbras and emanations was later found in Congress’s power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Especially since the New Deal, the part about “the several states” has gotten quite a workout. It is now interpreted to mean that the Federal Government can “regulate” just about everything we do, from sea to shining sea. This makes the rest of the Constitution pretty much superfluous.

Where does this leave the Tenth Amendment? Oh, that. The Supreme Court has held that it’s just “declaratory,” a mere “truism,” a trivially true acknowledgment that the states retain any powers they haven’t actually “surrendered” (the Court carefully avoided the fraught word “delegated”).

To call all this “legislating from the bench” is an almost imbecilic understatement. It inverts the plain meaning of the Constitution, making it mean the opposite of what it actually says. It’s nothing less than revolution by means of “interpretation.”

If the power to “regulate commerce ... among the several states” had been as broad as the courts now say, Congress could have abolished slavery, imposed (and repealed) Prohibition, and given women the vote by mere statute, without all the bother of amending the Constitution twice.

Notice that the Tenth Amendment is one of the few passages in the Constitution in which the Federal judiciary hasn’t discovered reservoirs of penumbras and emanations. I wonder why.

Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060202.shtml".

Copyright (c) 2006 by the Griffin Internet Syndicate,
www.griffnews.com. This column may not be published in
print or Internet publications without express permission
of Griffin Internet Syndicate. You may forward it to
interested individuals if you use this entire page,
including the following disclaimer:

"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available
by subscription. For details and samples, see
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."

Culture of Corruption

If you listen to the Democrats, you would think that the only ones to have taken lobbyist money EVER has been the Republicans. Well a report came out this week that says otherwise!

"Since the 1990 election cycle, Democrats have accepted more than $53 million from lobbyists while Republicans have taken more than $48 million for their election campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. "

Remember, this is the group that has been leading the charge against Tom DeLay! Even they admit that the Dems are equally culpable in this. Not only do we have the Abramoff ties to Dems (Harry Reid for one did indeed help Abramoff clients contrary to his denials) we have this:

"Then came the allegations last August that Jefferson had orchestrated a corruption scheme. Federal investigators are targeting the Democratic congressman, 58, for allegedly demanding cash and other favors for himself and relatives, in exchange for using his congressional clout to arrange African business deals. A former aide recently pleaded guilty to bribing Jefferson and is cooperating with authorities, and sources familiar with the case say a plea agreement with the lawmaker is being explored."

It just goes to show (yet again) that the Dems have nothing to offer the electorate (since they refuse to put out an agenda) other than attacks that are not based in any sort of fact.

Budget cuts?

With the 2007 budget announced, the spin over who is getting what is in full swing. For example, when speaking before the SD35 DFL, Coleen Rowley spoke about how Defense spending was the big winner (only if big winner equates to the 3rd largest piece of the budgetary pie that is). However, the thing that has been the most upsetting is the talk of massive budget "cuts" in discretionary spending.

The San Diego Union Leader had a good dissection of this spin here.

"The President would increase Medicare spending by about 66 percent over the next five years. Under the proposed 2007 budget, Medicare would grow by 7.7 percent a year. Where’s the cut? There isn’t one. "

Well, not according to Senators Harry Reid and Arlen Specter. According to the dynamic due, because the increase is only 7.7% instead of the 8.1% from this last budget we are looking at "massive cuts". That dear reader is the reality of Washington DC. If your rate of budget growth does not match what you got last year, it is a budget cut!

"Despite the lies and demagoguery of the left, if entitlement spending is not restrained it will consume more than 60 percent of the federal budget in just 25 years. The President and Republicans must have the backbone to push real entitlement reform no matter how many times they are deceitfully called heartless and cruel. If they let the demagogues win, our children will be the ones who pay, and pay big. "

This is why these mid-term elections are so very, very important! Washington needs a dose of reality. Your budget (and mine) doesn't get an automatic increase every year. Why should Washington get one?

Minorities leaving the Dems?

I'm catching up on some articles that I had set aside to write on while I was ill last week.

Front Page Magazine ran this article written by Dick Morris (a former Clinton advisor). It brings to light a phenomonon that has the Democrats running most scared.

" Far away from the speeches of Jesse Jackson, the demands of Al Sharpton and the ranting of Louis Farrakhan, a quiet revolution is taking place in the role African-Americans play in politics. In the very heartland of the nation — in Pennsylvania and Ohio — the Republican Party is getting set to nominate black candidates for governor in the coming elections. In a nation that has not a single African-American governor — not one — from either party, this is its own little revolution. "

The Republicans are running viable candidates for Governor in two states. In Pennsylvania, the GOP just endorsed former Pittsburgh Steeler running back Lynn Swann for Governor and Ken Blackwell, who has already won election to statewide office, is running in Ohio. Couple that with the Senatorial campaign of Michael Steele (current Leiutenant Governor) in Maryland with the push for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (whom I greatly admire) to run for President and you can see why they are scared. The Democrats have long taken the minority vote for granted. However, their continued leftward lurch has left many of those minorities (like myself) looking for other representation. We (minorities) are finally starting to realize that the tax and spend, rely on others to take care of you instead of taking care of yourself policies of the Democratic party are not in our best interests. We want to be able to grab our American Dream and government hand outs are not going to get it for us.

Expect the shrill rhetoric of the left to grow louder as the minority vote becomes more and more in play for rather than come up with ideas to keep us engaged, they are going to try to scare us back "on to the plantation".

The Savage Republican

Local Attractions

Favorite Links

Previous Posts

Archives

Thursday, February 23, 2006