Another day, another complete idiot:

A local teacher accidentally put pornography into a DVD that was meant to be filled with school memories from the past year, and nobody caught the error until after it was sent home, shocking parents and students alike.

Parents of students who attend Isabelle Jackson Elementary said that the woman is a good teacher, but just made a mistake that may become the most embarrassing moment of their life.

The offending DVD starts with a menu screen that displays various school trips and functions, and when you click on one of them, you see kids in a classroom sharing stories. They start clapping, then the video suddenly cuts to sex.

“It goes from my son, straight to her on the couch,” said ‘Joe,’ who saw the video along with his son and did not wish to be identified. “My son’s reaction was, ‘Dad, is that Ms. Defanti?’”

“We were up till midnight doing the ‘birds and the bees,’” he added.

The person in the video turned out to be Isabelle Jackson Elementary fifth grade teacher Crystal Defanti.

“All she could say was that it was a horrible mix up,” Joe said.

The teacher called his home the day after his child got the DVD, crying hysterically, profusely apologizing and asking the man and his wife to call every parent they knew to stop their kids from seeing the DVD too.

The Elk Grove Unified School District says they are investigating, but legal experts say it’s unlikely that the teacher will lose her job.

“It’s felony stupid, but it’s not a crime,” said defense expert Ken Rosenfeld. “Is it something that she should be disciplined for? Absolutely, but fired for? She didn’t intend for this to happen.”

Joe doesn’t care if the teacher keeps her job, he’d just like some help from the school.

“Maybe offer some sort of counseling for my children, ask me how my children are doing,” he said. “I want somebody to ask me the kind of questions my kids are asking me.”

School officials say a new DVD will be sent to students once it has been reviewed.

 

Do you think she should be fired?  Should law enforcement become involved?  You could make an argument that she was distributing indecent materials to minors, but since she did not do it knowingly, then it is technically not a felony. 

Still, she is guilty of one thing… 

(more…)

Despite the fact that most Americans are already happy with their health care, including the uninsured, the radical left has convinced the nation that there’s a crisis. (There is a crisis in health care, actually: it’s called Medicare, and it’s not going to pay for itself. But I digress…) So to fix this “crisis,” Barack Obama and his cheerleaders are promoting what they call a “public” option to promote more “competition” in the health care market. Sounds awfully capitalisty. Competition and all that.

But what they mean, of course, is a government option funded by taxpayers to naturally monopolize the health care market. It isn’t “competition” for one side to start out with unlimited resources and three hundred million donors to the kitty. If you think that the government option is going to merely “compete” with the private sector, then take a look at the education system. “Public” “schools” are merely “competing” with the private sector. Such is the essence of socialistic policies: everyone’s covered. Poorly.

Obama wants everyone to have “the same care as Congress has,” as if that were possible.

How about Congress send their kids to the schools they force everyone else to send their kids to? Even the federal government itself doesn’t trust what it’s doing.

Perhaps one day we’ll be so well-covered, just like Britain, that our government bans life-saving drugs because they’re too expensive. Hooray for “universal” “health care”!

Or maybe private care will be made illegal, like in Canada. (They were more honest about where “competition” leads, it should be said.)

No one can “compete” with the behemoth “public” option. The multi-trillion dollar federal government is better-funded than any other operation in the universe and can crush everything in its path. It did it to our schools. If you want our health care quality to look like our schools, then sign on to the Obama plan. But please call it what it is.

Cable

I turned on my television at 6:00PM and checked out the cable news networks;

Fox: Major Marine Corps Offensive in Helmand Province, North Korean missile launch, WaPo’s new marketing campaign  and the rising unemployment rate.

CNN: Michael Jackson, Jermaine Jackson, Neverland Ranch, President Obama on Michael Jackson and MJ’s children.

MSNBC: Not exactly sure, as I have it blocked on my satellite. 

—

Sanford Comeback

State investigators have determined that Mark Sanford is innocent of the accusations that he fraudulently used State resources on his trips to Argentina.  I fully expect an apology from Anderson Cooper this evening for suggesting this crime, even though he lacked the evidence to prove the charge. 

It appears as if the crying and public repenting has satisfied Jenny Sanford, as she has decided to forgive her husband, despite calls from pundits for her to leave him in the barn with the rest of the game-cocks .

Sanford will not resign and I predict a comeback within 6 years.

—

Afghanistan

According to the Fox News story on the Marine offensive in Helmand province, President Obama has in fact adopted the LBJ strategy for fighting a counter insurgency.  The 4,000 Marines (some of whom were parachuted behind enemy lines) are battling the Pashtun militancy without air support.  Apparently the Obama administration is worried about collateral damage making its way into newspaper headlines in Europe. 

This event reminds me of something I wrote back in early April.

I had held out hope that the new administrations Afghan strategy would be similar to President Nixon’s Vietnam strategy, of using military means to force your opponent to the bargaining table while simultaneously preparing the local government for political and security self-sustainment.  What we are facing, is an inexperienced President, fearful of creating political waves, who is allowing our allies to withdrawal from Afghanistan while taking the focus and funding off of stabilizing the central government in Kabul.

God bless the Marines and protect them from the incompetent political leadership that is leading us into failure in Afghanistan. 

—

The Federal ATM

You have to give Sarah Palin credit for predicting the future.  The Governor of Alaska has predicted just about every policy move made by the Obama administration thus far.  In 2008 she warned us that Obama was looking to adopt a European style of socialism, by expanding the size of the US government and increasing taxes on middle America. 

Last month Governor Palin predicted that the Obama administration would offer bailout packages to States.  The word around States houses today, was exactly that.  The Obama administration is now willing to offer bailout packages to cash strapped States.  Since there are always strings attached to the Obama ATM, one has to wonder what exactly his administration will ask for in return (cough – health care reform)?

—

More Taxation

Speaking of health care reform, the Dodd-Kennedy-Obama plan will propose a $750 per employee head tax on companies that refuse to provide those on their payroll with health insurance.  The CBO estimates that this new tax will generated $36 billion in additional revenue.  CBO estimates on job losses and small business bankruptcies as a result of this new tax have not been released as of yet.

—

Team Mahmoud-Obama 

Now that the US media, the President of Iran and the Obama administration have successfully muffled the coverage of the brutal crackdown on women and youth in Iran, the Islamic Republic has restored SMS texting service.  

What was her name again?

__________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

From Rush earlier:

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, as a powerful, influential member of the media I am asked questions frequently as though I am an expert — which I am, of course.  One of the most often asked questions is, “How in the world did Obama get elected?  How can this happen?”  I call your attention to the story here in Florida where a guy and his girlfriend are living together. The guy has a nine-foot python in the house — and it does what snakes do, it snuck outta there.  And it strangled the woman’s baby girl.  Now, who…? There are a lot of things that I don’t understand.  That’s one of them.  It’s not the animal’s fault.  I mean, the python’s a python.  It strangles things.  “Yeah, but, Rush, it was an albino!”  So what?  It’s a sad situation. 

If you spent any time watching the news today, somewhere in between reports about Michael Jackson and Mark Sanford, you probably saw this story.  From the Associated Press:

OXFORD, Fla. — A Burmese python more than 8 feet long broke out of a terrarium and strangled a 2-year-old girl in her bedroom yesterday at a central Florida home, authorities said.

Shaiunna Hare was already dead when paramedics arrived at about 10 a.m., Lt. Bobby Caruthers of the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office said.

Charles Jason Darnell, the snake’s owner and the boyfriend of Shaiunna’s mother, discovered the snake missing from its terrarium and went to the girl’s room, where he found it on the girl, who had bite marks on her head, Caruthers said. Darnell, 32, stabbed the snake until he was able to pry the child away.

Authorities removed the snake from the home yesterday afternoon after obtaining a search warrant. Once outside the small, tan home, bordered by cow pastures, the snake was placed in a bag then inside a dog crate. The snake was still alive.

Darnell did not have a permit for the snake, which would be a second-degree misdemeanor, said Joy Hill, a spokeswoman with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. He has not been charged, but Caruthers said investigators were looking into whether there was child neglect or if any other laws were broken.

This story caught my attention when I heard it on the radio this morning, but it was not until I heard the 911 call being played repeatedly on the news channels today that it really got me mad. 

First of all, what in God’s name would possess some idiot to have this kind of animal in the house… especially with a toddler?  You have got to be a MORON to even consider such a thing.  I mean… unless you’re the F***in’ Crocadile Hunter then there is no excuse to have an animal of this nature around children.  Hell, they shouldn’t be around people at all. 

The Dorton family in Florence has had their Burmese python for one year. They said they hope the Florida tragedy won’t put a bad light what they call gentle creatures.

Belle is an albino Burmese python, and very similar to the snake that killed the 2-year-old in Florida.

“It’s tragic, absolutely tragic,” said Dolly Dorton. ”I have a 2-year-old grandbaby and a 5-year-old niece, so, they love her to death.”

Dorton said Belle has been a great pet. She only has to feed her every two weeks, and she never makes a sound.

“They are cold,” she said. ”She helps with my hot flashes.”

Many snake owners say that they actually make wonderful pets. Dorton did encourage anyone who wants a snake to remember they are dangerous if not handled carefully, and owners must be very responsible.

“If you have something of that size, its a danger,” said Vinnie Grosso with Florence Animal Control.

Grosso himself is the owner of two snakes. He said he doesn’t know the details of the Florida incident, but says there was probably a reason the snake attacked.

“A snake of that size is not going to go after a 2-year-old unless its very, very hungry,” he said.

Grosso said snakes can go up to a year without food, but if they have an opportunity to eat, they will.

“If you’re going to have a snake of that size, you can’t buy a cage,” he said. ”You have to have something built.”

And the most important part is to make sure the snake can’t get out.

The man who owned the snake that killed the child in Florida could face child endangerment charges.

Some “snake enthusiasts” will bring up the fact that only 12 incidents have been reported where a pet python kills its owner in the last twenty-six years, which is an accurate number according to experts.  Of course, less people have been killed by tigers in that same period (only 8), BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS SAFE TO HAVE ONE IN THE HOUSE AND RAISE IT LIKE A PET! 

And then having heard this jerk off’s 911 call played numerous times today, it’s safe to say that I’ve got no sympathy for them.  Yes, the child’s death breaks my heart, and she did not deserve to die the way she did, but THEY SHOULDN”T HAVE HAD A FREAKING SNAKE IN THEIR HOUSE. 

I’m completely with Rush on this:  It’s not the python’s fault.  The python did what a python does.  A python can not discriminate between a rat and a toddler when it decides that it’s dinner time, the way a domesticated dog would do. 

Let me use an example to show you what I mean:  a wolf mother cares for her pups until they are able to fend for themselves.  Here is the wikipedia article describing how a wolf is normally raised in the wild:

The gestation period lasts between 60 and 63 days. The pups, which weigh 0.5 kg (1 lb) at birth, are born blind, deaf, and completely dependent on their mother.  The average litter size is 5-6 pups, though there are two Soviet records of litters consisting of 17 pups.  The pups reside in the den and stay there for two months. The den is usually on high ground near an open water source, and has an open chamber at the end of an underground or hillside tunnel that can be up to a few meters long.  During this time, the pups will become more independent, and will eventually begin to explore the area immediately outside the den before gradually roaming up to a mile away from it at around 5 weeks of age. Wolf growth rate is slower than that of coyotes and dholes.   They begin eating regurgitated foods after 2 weeks of feeding on milk, which in wolves has less fat and more protein and arginine than dog milk.   By this time, their milk teeth have emerged — and are fully weaned by 10 weeks. During the first weeks of development, the mother usually stays with her litter alone, but eventually most members of the pack will contribute to the rearing of the pups in some way.  After two months, the restless pups will be moved to a rendezvous site, where they can stay safely while most of the adults go out to hunt. One or two adults stay behind to ensure the safety of the pups. After a few more weeks, the pups are permitted to join the adults if they are able, and will receive priority on anything killed, their low ranks notwithstanding. Letting the pups fight for eating privileges results in a secondary ranking being formed among them, and allows them to practice the dominance/submission rituals that will be essential to their future survival in pack life.  During hunts, the pups remain ardent observers until they reach about 8 months of age, by which time they are large enough to participate actively.

Now, compare that to the Burmese Python:

Burmese Pythons breed in the early spring, with females laying clutches which average 12–36 eggs in March or April. She will remain with the eggs until they hatch, wrapping around them and twitching her muscles in such a way as to raise the ambient temperature around the eggs by several degrees. Once the hatchlings use their egg tooth to cut their way out of their eggs, there is no further maternal care. The newly hatched will often remain inside their egg until they are ready to complete their first shedding of skin, after which they hunt for their first meal.

It is pretty dumb to think one could raise a pet wolf  because they are not safe, but wolves at least have some sort of sense of companionship.  The Burmese python, on the other hand, does not.  At the same time, the python in the Florida case didn’t know it was doing anything wrong.  To the contrary… 

The idiot who thought he could keep a nine foot predator in the same house as a toddler has no one to blame but himself.  I realise that he was angry and stabbed the snake to get it to release the child’s body, but in the end…  it didn’t know it was doing anything wrong.  It only followed it’s instincts.  The jackass who thought it was a good idea to keep a python in the same house as a toddler might not have suffered from a lack of instinct, just from having no common sense.

I missed a somewhat interesting post on New Majority a couple days ago (probably because I only glance at it on my googlereader feed about once a week).  The piece, “Dick Cheney’s Child and Mine”, is written by a woman named Elise Cooper and it makes a somewhat atypical call for gay marriage.  Her son, like Dick Cheney’s daughter, is gay and her plea is as much personal as political.  In arguments of morality, where premises are difficult to agree on and facts are often interminable, personal pleas can go a long way. Elise writes, in part: 

Why do I believe in gay marriage? On a personal note, as a mother, I want my son to find someone who he can spend the rest of his days with in a loving, long lasting relationship. After informing some of my Republican friends about my support of gay marriage, I got the gamut of reactions from “so what” to “gay marriage is simply not right.”   There were numerous reasons given by my Republican friends for being against gay marriage which I hope to counter in this article.

Some Republicans believe that civil unions should reinforce the rights of gay and lesbian couples. They told me “if a person got sick, they should be allowed to have visitors close to them.” Some went further, stating “there are those who should be allowed to make health care decisions for each other or be allowed to be put on each other’s insurance policy.” My response to them was that by accepting civil unions you are recognizing gay couples (except if you happen to live in Iran.) By being in support of civil unions there is the undeniable recognition of domestic partnerships. Therefore, civil unions promote “gay families.” Then why not call it marriage? 

These aren’t bad arguments and conservatives need to (and in most cases have) come to grips with them. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the argument doesn’t stand up to any intellectual or moral scrutiny.  Later: 

Other Republicans pointed out that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity and does not accept it as a lifestyle. I cannot accept that premise considering the fact that the Bible talks about other archaic practices such as stoning and polygamy. It seems to me that people choose to follow certain parts of the Bible while ignoring others. I want my son to continue to be a part of our religion and not to be turned away because of his beliefs or lifestyle. For me, the reality of religions is that everyone chooses to pick what they will follow from the Sacred Text.

Let’s leave aside, for the moment, that there are later parts of the Christian Bible (particularly the New Testament) which seem to take serious issue with the “archaic practices” Elise mentions.  Let’s even accept that, like Scalia’s faint-hearted originalist, some of us are faint-hearted Christians.  Even after all that, there’s still nothing remotely coherent about the bolded text.  How can someone be “part of a religion” if they don’t let it affect their beliefs or lifestyle?  Even the vaguest, watery spirtualism makes claims about proper lifestyle and right belief.  Imagine this reformulation: “I want my son to be a Vegan and not be turned away because he happens to like meat”.  Such a statement would strike even the most hardened cynic as incredible, but we barely notice the more consequential religious version. 

I don’t claim to know how central the doctrines on homosexuality are to Christianity (though I’m pretty sure it’s somewhere between Jerry Falwell Christianity and Elise Cooper Christianity). Still,  I think it’s troubling that we now take our diets more seriously than our religion.  Christianity has become, for the Elise Cooper’s of the world, a cultural artifact like Republicanism was for mid-20th century Northeasterners- divorced from the doctrinal background which made it a force to be reckoned with.  If the gay marriage crusade- wherever you come down on the issue individually- leads to a world where more people feel that religion shouldn’t interfere with your beliefs or lifestyle, then we’ll all lose out.

Quinnipiac National Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 57% (59%)
• Disapprove 33% (31%)

Among Independents

• Approve 52% (57%)
• Disapprove 37% (30%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 52%
• Disapprove 42%

Among Independents

• Approve 47%
• Disapprove 46%

Who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy – President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

• President Obama 54%
• Republicans in Congress 32%

Among Independents

• President Obama 49%
• Republicans in Congress 32%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling foreign policy?

• Approve 55%
• Disapprove 35%

Among Independents

• Approve 54%
• Disapprove 37%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 42%

Among Independents

• Approve 37%
• Disapprove 48%

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?

• Approve 54% (55%)
• Disapprove 26% (25%)

Among Independents

• Approve 47% (53%)
• Disapprove 28% (26%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Barack Obama 58% / 30% [+28%]
• Democratic Party 42% / 42% [0%]
• Republican Party 25% / 52% [-27%]

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 55% / 33% [+22%]
• Democratic Party 30% / 49% [-19%]
• Republican Party 20% / 57% [-37%]

(more…)

First, a word about what elitism is not. I’m not sure whether it’s my lack of clarity in writing or because populists have preconceived notion about what an elitist is that they have trouble discarding — perhaps it’s a little of both — but there seems to be a lot of misconceptions about my line of thinking.

In my last post, I tried to clarify my thoughts on Sarah Palin’s populism in relation to Benjamin Franklin’s elitism. I went to great lengths to assure Adam Graham that it had absolutely nothing to do with her lack of formal education — which I think is largely a waste of time to the self-motivated man — but everything to do with her lack of pursuit of excellence. Kavon immediately replied to me, saying that I would probably think less of him (or of Ronald Reagan) because of his lack of formal education.

Um…

Elitism, in its virtuous form, is a state of mind. It is about setting one’s self apart from the masses to pursue intelligence, wisdom, achievement, and excellence. It is not content with simply being satisfied with one’s birth lot, but is always striving to reach the next step on the ladder. It is self-reliant. It is morally searching and fearless, and rejects misguided notions of egalitarianism. A professional truck driver who philosophizes on the side, partakes in learned and intellectually honest political debate online, and builds a comfortable life for himself can potentially be an elitist. A professor who advocates reparations for slavery, postmodern Marxism, and single-payer health care may not be.

Modern liberalism and virtuous elitism are incompatible. Modern liberalism spits upon productive achievement, fetishizes egalitarianism, and celebrates the average rather than the exceptional.

So does populist ‘conservatism.’

There is nothing wrong with being a ‘Joe Six-Pack,’ necessarily, but why glorify his experiences? Why say that being a professor, a senator, a political consultant, a reporter — is not a “real job”? Despite the abundance of high-profile exceptions, most people actually work their way up from the bottom to be senators, governors, and even presidents. Instead of using her position to speak of the virtues of exceptionalism, Sarah Palin has used her position to tell the lower classes to, essentially, be content with their lot. That there’s something virtuous in their experiences. [Edit: And that Adam Graham thinks that Veterans' Day is not a celebration of excellence is appalling.]

It’s ironic that populist conservatives claim to admire the Founding Fathers — they were no Joe Six-Packs. They were penetrating thinkers, accomplished authors, philosophers, seasoned statesmen.

The point is not, to echo my earlier statement, that there are lots of neo-Franklins running around. It’s that Sarah Palin shows absolutely no desire to emulate the ideal of Franklin. She’s not even bothering, according to people like William Kristol, to consult with foreign policy experts in preparation for her 2012 run. So I suppose she’s just going to wing it. I don’t think it makes me some sort of snob to suggest that our commander-in-chief should know a thing or two about foreign policy before entering the Oval Office. (Note that I said know a thing or two. I did not say have served in a high-ranking university position concerning foreign policy.)

Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina — these men and women have shown that they care about the Franklin Ideal. They are men and women of excellence, regardless of what you want to say about their politics. They have their low points — both personally and in their politics — but they do not rebuke the virtuous elitist ideal; they have an unquenchable desire to excel.

That is what I want to see in our candidates: a desire to excel.

And that’s what makes me so depressed about the rise of Sarah Palin.

Republican men are clearly much more conservative…with their sexual affairs, while Democrat politicians are much more liberal with their sexual affairs.  Liberal politicians seem to enjoy breaking the law when it comes to their infidelity.  They involve themselves with high-priced call girls, young employees and other criminal activities.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

As far as I’m concerned, the state is responsible for the death of virtuous elitism: meritocracy, the pursuit of excellence, productive work and achievement. Once the state instituted its system of education, the hierarchy of what constituted an “education” was put into place, and the self-made, self-educated men of old were utterly forgotten as exemplars of greatness.

So when Adam Graham makes his argument that today’s “party elites” fixate on “formal education,” I must admit I’m rather confused. I have a strong distaste for formal education. I think it’s largely a hamster-wheel-style charade that prevents real education — the kind that takes place in libraries and living rooms (and now on computers) — from being able to actively take place. I don’t want anyone to ever mistake my education to have come from a university. It is coming from books. I’m at a university primarily to “play the game.” My educational experience thus far has been rather lackluster.

So why this dissonance? Could it be because my argument actually has nothing to do with formal education — and everything to do with the pursuit of excellence?

Adam asserts that my argument falls flat because I have not put forward anyone in this era who compares even somewhat favorably next to Benjamin Franklin. Rudy Giuliani, my preferred candidate, he says, hardly emulates Franklin, either. And on this count, he’s somewhat right. I could fill volumes with the aspects of Rudy Giuliani I dislike. But for all of his flaws, there’s so much to love about him, and he’s accomplished many great things in his life. He comes far closer to emulating the ideals of Franklin than someone like Sarah Palin does.

It isn’t so much that Palin comes off unfavorably when compared to Franklin. It’s that Palin seems to have no interest in becoming like Franklin; she knowingly and consciously lives a life diametrically opposed to the ideals of the man — and then glorifies it as an ideal. She celebrates Joe Six-Pack,  not Ben Franklin. She celebrates the hockey mom, not the political-theorist-investor-scientist-diplomat.

Quite obviously, I was not defending ‘elitism’ defined as ‘whoever’s in charge’ — a facetious strawman argument. Anyone who has gone over my essays with even the breeziest intentions can discern that what I celebrate is not power — an ugly concept — but excellence. We should strive to  nominate candidates who come as close as possible to that ideal.

ABC News/Washington Post Political Issues Survey

Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?

• Should 75%
• Should not 22%

Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases if it raised the price of things you buy?

• Should 62%
• Should not 35%

There’s a proposed system called “cap and trade.” The government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. The idea is that many companies would find ways to put out less greenhouse gases, because that would be cheaper than buying permits. Would you support or oppose this system?

• Support 52%
• Oppose 42%

What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 10 dollars a month – in that case would you support or oppose it?

• Support 56%
• Oppose 42%

What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month – in that case would you support or oppose it?

• Support 44%
• Oppose 54%

Do you think the United States should take action on global warming only if other major industrial countries such as China and India agree to do equally effective things, that the United States should take action even if these other countries do less, or that the United States should not take action on this at all?

• Take action only if other countries do 20%
• Take action even if other countries do less 59%
• Should not take action at all 18%

Would you support or oppose a law that requires all Americans to have health insurance, either getting it from work or buying it on their own?

• Support 49%
• Oppose 47%

Would you support or oppose a law that requires all Americans to have health insurance if it included a rule that working Americans who don’t get insurance through work or on their own would have to pay money into a government health insurance fund?

• Support 44%
• Oppose 52%

Would you support or oppose a law that requires all Americans to have health insurance if it included a rule that insurance companies sell coverage to people regardless of pre-existing conditions?

• Support 68%
• Oppose 27%

Would you support or oppose creating a government-run health insurance plan if having the government create a new health insurance plan made many private health insurers go out of business because they could not compete?

• Support 37%
• Oppose 58%

If the health care system is changed, do you think the quality of your health care will get better, get worse, or remain about the same?

• Better 16%
• Worse 31%
• Same 50%

Would you support or oppose a law limiting the amount of money someone can collect if they win a lawsuit after being injured by bad medical care?

• Support 57%
• Oppose 42%

The Supreme Court legalized abortion 36 years ago in the ruling known as Roe versus Wade. If that case came before the court again, would you want Sotomayor to vote to uphold Roe versus Wade, or vote to overturn it?

• Uphold 60%
• Overturn 34%

Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?

• Legal in all cases 20%
• Legal in most cases 35%
• Illegal in most cases 26%
• Illegal in all cases 17%

Survey of 1,001 adults was conducted June 18-21. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 37% (I); 35% (D); 22% (R).

Mitt Romney’s fans and detractors enjoy shouting at each other over the benefits and drawbacks of Massachusett’s health plan, and about what Romney should get the credit and blame for in regard to it. Here’s some fuel for the fire, a Rasmussen Poll of Massachusetts voters about the plan:

Massachusetts Survey of 500 Likely Voters, Conducted April 16, 2009

1. Has Healthcare reform in Massachusetts been a success or a failure?

• 26% Success
• 37% Failure
• 37% Not sure

2. Has healthcare reform in Massachusetts made healthcare more affordable, less affordable or has there been no change?

• 21% More affordable
• 27% Less affordable
• 44% There has been no change
• 8% Not sure

3. Under healthcare reform is the quality of healthcare getting better, getting worse or is it about the same?

• 10% Getting better
• 29% Getting worse
• 53% It’s about the same
• 8% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

The numbers are not very good. Romney’s detractors say the problems are largely his fault, while his supporters say it was the best program possible in a very liberal state, and has been undermined since his departure. While I’m only so-so on Romney, I’m sympathetic to the latter viewpoint — at least the part about being the best program possible. Whichever is the case, however, Romney’s opponents will use his healthcare program against him in the primaries, and this poll will help their arguments.

News round-up:

-LA Times on Kansas City barbecue.

-CNET News:  ”The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.”

-Dunkin’ Donuts is opening a new store in Overland Park, KS.

-The Hill:  Obama nominee thinks animals should be able to sue humans in court.

-Reuters: Wichita, KS, has the least expensive regular unleaded.

-McClatchy: “What’s really in pool water?”

-This is how gun control leaders seek to reassure gun rights advocates: Obama’s too busy with other stuff.  Kansas City Star article, emphasis added:

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said there was no tangible evidence that the Obama administration would seek to curtail ammunition purchases or limit gun rights.

“To think Obama is going to take their guns away is stupid. The man has his hands full,” Hamm said. “The calls of gloom and doom that are being sold out there are not only untrue but not healthy.”

-Fox News on Lawrence High School’s Tim Latham:  “Kansas Teacher With Conservative Views Gets Job Back”

-The school board of the Kansas City, MO, “public” schools had to pay a $20,000 bonus to the interim superintendant to persuade him to stay around until a permanent CEO was found.

-Kansas City Star columnist Mike Hendricks, who says Bill O’Reilly is complicit in the murder of George Tiller, was awarded a second place honor in the cateogory of humor by the National Society of Newspaper Columnists.

-Washington Examiner:  “Nick Jonas: Pop star today, president in 2040″

-House Democrats chose not to provide the $36 million needed in funding to build the National Bio- and Agro-Defense lab in Manhattan, Kansas.  Where’s our pork?

-LEGO Land is hiring Lego builders.

-Kathleen Sebelius:

“I don’t think there’s anything about the public option that would ration care. Unfortunately care is being rationed each and everyday right now. Often private insurance companies stand between a patient and a doctor deciding what treatment can be provided,” she said on Fox News Sunday. “We also have a situation where a lot of people are told that hey can’t have insurance because they have a preexisting condition.”

-David Axelrod:  Obama might break pledge to raise taxes on the  middle class.

-Taxpayer-funded poll by Kansas Department of Transportation finds that Kansans want more tax money going to roads.

The AP is reporting:

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters “understandably attract this court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.”

Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg’s dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday.

The case is Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al. (07-1428 and 08-328). The opinion can be viewed here.

God's mouthpiece?

Sheesh.  Bill Keller sure does like to cast judgment on others, and now it seems he likes to talk bad about people when they aren’t exactly in position to defend themselves.  The extreme nutcase, convicted felon, founder of the Live Prayer website, and self appointed guardian of entry into the Pearly Gates of Heaven (apparently, God must have relieved St. Peter of his duties), now has the moral authority to judge the recently deceased.

Sadly, Michael (Jackson) grew up in the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult. This is the cult born out of the depraved mind of Charles Taze Russell and denies the very deity of Christ. You can go to Google and type in “cults Jehovah’s Witnesses” and it will give you many websites to document their false theology.

As Kristofer Lorelli pointed out earlier, Keller is a member of the ARTL along with Steve Deace, and was behind one of the Anti-Mormon campaigns during the 2007 primaries.

From U.S. News and World Report, a great concept with a really bad leader:

Ralph Reed, the Republican operative who built the Christian Coalition into a potent political force in the 1990s by mobilizing evangelicals and other religious conservatives and who did similar work to help George W. Bush win two presidential elections, is quietly launching a group aimed at using the Web to mobilize a new generation of values voters. In addition to targeting the GOP’s traditional faith-based allies—white evangelicals and observant Catholics—the group, called the Faith and Freedom Coalition, will reach out to Democratic-leaning constituencies, including Hispanics, blacks, young people, and women.

“This is not your daddy’s Christian Coalition,” Reed said in an interview Monday. “It’s got to be more brown, more black, more female, and younger. It’s critical that we open the door wide and let them know if they share our values and believe in the principles of faith and marriage and family, they’re welcome.”

“There’s a whole rising generation of young leaders in the faith community, and rather than nab the publicity I did at Christian Coalition, I want to cultivate and train that rising generation,” Reed said. “One question is, who is our future Barack Obama, doing local organizing just like he was in the 1990s?”

The Faith and Freedom Coalition has been quietly active for a few weeks but has attracted no news media notice so far. Reed said that was intentional: “We’re less focused on the pyrotechnics than on being a strong grass-roots presence all the way down to the precinct level, which has always been my emphasis.”

The idea for the new group, which is still hashing out an organizational blueprint, was born just after Election Day 2008, when exit polls showed that Obama made gains among traditionally Republican religious constituencies, including evangelicals, conservative Catholics, and frequent churchgoers. “Since I left the Christian Coalition, we haven’t had an engine designed to turn out this large part of the vote,” Reed said. “After the election, people said that I ought to consider doing something about it.”

Reed’s idea is right on. Getting minority voters who hold traditonal social views to care about and be active on those issues is huge. Unfortunately,  Reed’s got some character problems, with his ties to the Jack Abramoff scandal, allegedly getting paid by Abramoff to lobby against Indian gambling, so that Abramoff would get paid by the tribes to lobby for Indian gambling.

From the moment, I laid eyes on Reed, I knew not to trust him. Everywhere goes, he uses the hard work and sweat of grassroots activists to build his own profile and influence within power circles, and I get nervous at the idea of this guy “influencing” young leaders. Thanks, but no thanks, Ralph.

I haven’t had a chance to see the controversial My Sister’s Keeper, a new film based on the Jodi Picoult novel of the same name.   I’ve also managed to avoid the book because I suspected I knew where Picoult would come out on the whole ethical dilemma.  Or I thought I knew.  It turns out I might be wrong, if Roger Ebert’s bizarre review of the film is any indication.  The story follows a young girl (played by Abigail Breslin) who was created via invitro fertilization, as a sort of organ bank for her Leukemia stricken older sister.  After being harvested for bone marrow, blood, etc, Breslin draws the line at a potentially dangerous kidney operation and initiates a lawsuit to refuse the surgery.  Ebert takes this plot and writes, perplexingly: 

The movie never says so, but it’s a practical parable about the debate between pro-choice and pro-life. If you’re pro-life, you would require Anna to donate her kidney, although there is a chance she could die, and her sister doesn’t have a good prognosis. If you’re pro-choice, you would support Anna’s lawsuit.

What in the world could Ebert mean by this?  That pro-lifers would support the forcible removal of organs for transplantation?   This shows a disastrous understanding of the pro-life position.  No pro-lifer has ever argued that individuals are entitled to preserve their life, through any means conceivable.  This “parable” of the abortion issue (and possibly this is what Picoult really intended) is laughable. 

In the first place abortion requires an active action to end the pregnancy.  Refusing to give a kidney requires…well, nothing.  It’s the difference between stealing an African child’s food and simply failing to give an African child food.  And while some would argue that there’s no meaningful moral difference between failing to do something you should do, and doing something you shouldn’t, surely that’s an argument which hits pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike.  Every day you and I fail to give money to starving people, and yet every day we wander free, safe from the ironhand of law.  

If anything, the analogy ought to run the opposite way.  After all, liberals commonly support positive liberty, while conservatives content themselves with negative liberty.  Conservatives believe that people shouldn’t be unjustly deprived of their health.  Liberals believe that people should be given health care, even if private providers (or private taxpayers) would prefer not to provide it.  George Bush may have coined the phrase ”when someone hurts, government’s got to move”, but liberals live it. 

Of course there’s another component to Picoult’s scenario which makes Ebert’s analogy even less apt; the idea of genetically engineering human beings for spare parts.  Modern day utilitarianism; eugenics by another name.  Whatever this is, it clearly isn’t conservative and I worry for the mental health of a prominent figure like Ebert who thinks that pro-lifers would approve of creating a girl for parts and subsequently enslaving her.  Or am I totally off-base here?  Help me fellow pro-lifers (pro-choicers weigh in too); maybe Ebert’s right, and I’m just an oddball pro-lifer.

Here’s an excerpt of one of my two recent pieces at Pajamas Media:

Since the day after John McCain lost the election, a battle has raged. “Pragmatists” have demanded that conservatives, particularly social conservatives, compromise their values in order to win elections.

The argument between the principled and the “pragmatists” goes back and forth, and there are numerous variations. A personal favorite, from the conservatives, is the pugilistic argument: make us.

This, of course, is not so much an argument as a challenge to the David Frums of the world. Conservatives did not obtain their spot in the GOP because the Rockefeller wing decided one day that, in order for the Republicans to win, they needed to let conservatives run things for a while. Conservatives became the core of the party through hard work and struggle.

But conservatives may not be utilizing the most potent fuel for the fight: the self-styled pragmatists’ ideas, listed below, are anything but.

Paul Bedard of U.S. News reports that many in Washington have begun to chatter about the possibility of a Haley Barbour-Mitch Daniels ticket in 2012:

But that hasn’t stopped the buzz in Washington, where we’re already hearing of a 2012 ticket teaming Barbour with another two-term governor, Indiana’s Mitch Daniels. He was a White House political director under Reagan and served as George W. Bush’s first budget chief. Like Barbour, he’s popular in his state, though quick to reject talk of his political future while still in office.

According to the local Star Tribune, Gov. Pawlenty has plans to attend a fundraiser for the Arkansas Republican Party tonight in Little Rock.  Does this mean T-Paw hopes to make inroads into the Huckster’s home court?  No way, say the two governors:

“Heavens no,” he said in an interview in Louisville, Ky., on Monday. “They’re my friends and colleagues. In fact I did a welcome video for Governor Pawlenty.”

The Minnesotan said he considers Huckabee a good friend and that he doesn’t view his trip as stepping into Huckabee’s back yard.

He said it’s too soon for him to even view Huckabee as a potential rival for the 2012 nomination. “I haven’t decided anything about my future, and I suspect he hasn’t either,” Pawlenty said Thursday.

And finally, who says the GOP hasn’t presented alternatives to the Dems’ spending plans?  From Rep. Cantor’s website:

Majority Leader John Boehner and I recently sent a proposal to President Obama that would save taxpayers $375 billion over the next five years.

Here are some examples of the proposed cuts, terminations and spending suspensions:

• Suspend spending on Federal Land Purchases, decreasing spending by $990 million over five years.
• Terminate Federal Transportation funding for “Non-Motorized Transportation Projects”, decreasing spending by $125 million over five years.
• Consolidate and reduce funding for Federal Advisory Committees, decreasing spending by $170 million over five years.
• Eliminate Federal Transportation funding for landscaping, museums, and other transportation “enhancements,” decreasing spending by $4.1 billion over five years.
• Terminate duplicative Education Programs, decreasing spending by $2.2 billion over five years.

With most Americans making budget cuts of our own it is time we pushed the government to follow suit.

Click here to view the proposed budget cuts we sent the President or please leave a comment with your thoughts.

8 so-called Republicans joined Speaker Pelosi in passing a massive new energy tax, barely getting through the House with a 219-212 vote.  The bipartisan attempt to stop this massive new tax fell short, with 44 Democrats voting against President Obama’s job-killing energy tax legislation.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

My fellow Americans, and people watching and listening across the world:

The past two weeks have shown us the incredibly dangerous world in which we live along with the darkest and most evil parts of the human heart: the desire to control and oppress at all cost, with no concern of human dignity or even human life. We have watched as a brutal government regime attacked its own people in a desperate attempt to hold on to the power they can only maintain through fear and intimidation.

But these past two weeks have also shown us the best the human spirit has to offer as well: courage of unbelievable measure, conviction in the fight against oppression no matter its face, and a yearning for freedom and liberty.

The United States of America was founded on a basic set of principles: that all people are created equal and bestowed certain inalienable rights from their Creator – such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Throughout our history as a nation, we have always sided and supported those who also yearn to rediscover and claim those inalienable rights.

In Iran, we, along with the rest of the world, are watching as those rights are being denied in forceful and often violent and fatal ways. We watch in horror as an evil regime massacres its own people, simply for protesting the results of a rigged and fraudulent election.
(more…)

Franklin & Marshall Pennsylvania 2010 Democratic Senatorial Primary

• Arlen Specter 33%
• Joe Sestak 13%
• Some other candidate 6%
• Don’t know 48%

How would you rate the way that Arlen Specter is handling his job as U.S. Senator? *

• Excellent job 10%
• Good job 24%
• Only a fair job 37%
• Poor job 18%

Do you believe that Arlen Specter has done a good enough job as senator to deserve re-election, or do you believe it is time for a change? *

• Deserves re-election 28%
• Time for a change 57%

How would you rate the way that Barack Obama is handling his job as President? *

• Excellent job 20%
• Good job 35%
• Only a fair job 25%
• Poor job 19%

How would you rate the way that Ed Rendell is handling his job as Governor? *

• Excellent job 10%
• Good job 28%
• Only a fair job 34%
• Poor job 25%

Pennsylvania is expected to have a large budget deficit this year and next year, which has forced state legislators to think of ways to balance the state budget. Generally speaking, do you think the state legislature should increase taxes to balance the budget, or do you think the state legislature should cut state programs and services to balance the
budget? *

• Increase taxes 29%
• Cut state programs and services 44%
• Neither 20%

(more…)

“Stop Rushing into another government takeover”

————————-

Dear Friend,    Thanks to the generous support of grassroots Republicans nationwide, the RNC has exceeded our goal of raising over $100,000 to help counter ABC’s upcoming one-sided infomercial for government-run health care. Though the television network has denied requests to air ads counter to President Obama’s government-run health care “reform” plans, they can’t keep us off the air. We are using the grassroots donations we received to spread our message against the one-sided, big government mantra being pushed by the Obama Democrats here in Washington — watch it now! Friend, we’ve made a good start, but we’re still up against the biased mainstream media machine’s effort to help President Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Democrats in Congress end individual health care choice and use your tax dollars to treat only the patients they deem deserving. The Democrats have shown they will stop at nothing to blur the lines between government and private sector, so we must keep the pressure on them. And at the same time, we must get our message of common sense GOP health care reform alternative out to more Americans. That’s why I’m again asking you to support our continuing efforts to get our message past the mainstream media filter. If we don’t stop the Obama Democrats’ disastrous health care takeover now, we’ll all be facing the end of health care choice and endlessly rising taxation very soon. Don’t let that happen — help Americans keep their health care freedom. Make your contribution to the RNC today! Sincerely, Michael Steele Chairman, Republican National Committee _____________________________________________________________________________ Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter.

1. Asians score higher than whites do on standardized tests. This testifies to one of two things: Asians are either harder-working than whites are, on average — or Asians are inherently more intelligent, on average, than whites. Right?

Most people seem to have no problem saying that.

OK, so are whites harder-working (or inherently more intelligent) than blacks?

2. It’s true that blacks are better at basketball than whites are, on average, correct?

Nobody seems to dispute that blacks excel at basketball.

Is there something that anyone can name that whites are better than blacks at?

Anyone?

3. Almost all interracial rape in this country comes about from blacks raping whites.

Is there a cultural problem specifically in the black community that needs addressed?

4. Nearly 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock. Homosexuality is practically taboo within black culture. And yet, black media glorifies the ‘pimp’ and ’street’ culture. Is there some sort of cultural problem pertaining to sex within the black community?

—

Phew! Too uncomfortable. Better just pretend these questions aren’t worth discussing.

Rasmussen Israel/Palestinian Survey

In terms of Middle Eastern policy, is Barack Obama too supportive of Israel, not supportive enough of Israel, or are his policies about right?

• Too supportive of Israel 10%
• Not supportive enough of Israel 35%
• His policies are about right 48%

As part of a Middle Eastern peace agreement, should Palestinian leaders be required to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state?

• Yes 81%
• No 7%

As part of a Middle Eastern peace agreement, should Israel be required to accept the creation of a Palestinian state?

• Yes 57%
• No 20%

How likely is it that Palestinian leaders will acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state?

• Likely 27%
• Not Likely 60%

How likely is it that Israel will accept the creation of a Palestinian state?

• Likely 43%
• Not Likely 46%

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted June 21-22. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Sixty-three percent (63%) of Republicans say Obama is not being supportive enough of Israel, but 78% of Democrats say his policy is about right. Unaffiliated voters are much more closely divided between those two positions.

Republicans are far more skeptical than Democrats that Palestinian leaders will recognize Israel’s right to exist. Voters not affiliated with either party share that skepticism.

Rasmussen Reports Hatred in America Survey

A Doctor who performs late term abortions, a soldier at a recruiting station, and a guard at Washington’s Holocaust Museum were recently murdered. Are these isolated incidents or a sign that hate is growing in America?

• Isolated incidents 35%
• A sign that hate is growing in America 50%

Does extreme political rhetoric on Radio, Television, and the Web lead to increased hatred in America?

• Yes 44%
• No 37%

Survey of 1,000 adults was conducted June 16-17. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of women see the incidents as a sign that hatred is increasing in this country, while men are more closely divided on the question. Married Americans are similarly divided, but adults who are not married by a 61% to 25% margin think hate is growing.

Again, while 50% of women blame extreme media rhetoric for increasing hatred, men by five points disagree.

Since much of the criticism after the shooting incidents was directed at conservative talk radio and television, it’s not surprising that 52% of Democrats blame radio, TV and Internet rhetoric for increased hatred, while a plurality of Republicans (44%) feel the opposite way. Adults not affiliated with either party are almost evenly divided on the question.

Washington Post/ABC News Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

• Strongly approve 36% (42%)
• Somewhat approve 29% (27%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% (8%)
• Strongly disapprove 22% (18%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling:

The economy

• Strongly approve 28% (31%)
• Somewhat approve 28% (28%)
• Somewhat disapprove 13% (13%)
• Strongly disapprove 27% (25%)

Health care

• Strongly approve 27%
• Somewhat approve 26%
• Somewhat disapprove 10%
• Strongly disapprove 29%

The federal budget deficit

• Strongly approve 22%
• Somewhat approve 26%
• Somewhat disapprove 13%
• Strongly disapprove 35%

Global warming

• Approve 54% (61%)
• Disapprove 28% (23%)

The situation involving the big U.S. automakers

• Approve 45% (41%)
• Disapprove 50% (53%)

International affairs

• Approve 61% (67%)
• Disapprove 32% (27%)

The threat of terrorism

• Approve 57%
• Disapprove 36%

The situation with Iran

• Approve 52%
• Disapprove 36%

So far, do you think the economic stimulus program has helped the national economy, hurt the national economy, or hasn’t made much difference? Is that a great deal or somewhat?

• Helped a great deal 8% (10%)
• Helped somewhat 20% (23%)
• Hurt somewhat 6% (6%)
• Hurt a great deal 13% (10%)
• Hasn’t made much difference 52% (49%)

Do you think the economic stimulus program has helped/will help the national economy, or not?

• Yes 52% (59%)
• No 46% (38%)

Generally speaking, would you say you favor smaller government with fewer services, or larger government with more services?

• Smaller government with fewer services 54%
• Larger government with more services 41%

Which of these statements comes closer to your view: Beneath it all, Obama is an old-style, tax-and-spend Democrat or Obama is a new-style Democrat who will be careful with the public’s money.

• Old style 36%
• New style 58%

How concerned, if at all, are you about the size of the federal budget deficit?

• Very concerned 56% (59%)
• Somewhat concerned 31% (27%)
• Not too concerned 9% (9%)
• Not concerned at all 4% (4%)

Do you think Obama’s policies are making the United States safer from terrorism, less safe, or are they not making much difference in that?

• Safer 32% (32%)
• Less safe 22% (21%)
• Not much difference 44% (43%)

Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?

• Support not using torture 50% (49%)
• There are cases to consider torture 46% (48%)

Do you approve or disapprove of Obama’s decision to close the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, early next year?

• Approve 45%
• Disapprove 50%

Would you approve or disapprove of closing the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay if it meant some of the terrorism suspects now held there were transferred to face trial in your state?

• Approve 37%
• Disapprove 59%

(more…)

Libertarian Purity Test

Take the test and let us know how well you did.  The questions focus on civil law, regulation, economics and foreign policy. 

—

What Your Score Means

0 points: You are not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

1-5 points:You have a few libertarian notions, but overall you’re a statist.

6-15 points: You are starting to have libertarian leanings. Explore them.

16-30 points: You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure.

31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious.

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so.

91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism.

131-159 points: You are nearly a perfect libertarian, with a tiny number of blind spots.

160 points: Perfect!

—-

Update:  I am a Minarchist (91-130 points), usually classified as a hard-core libertarian.  My deviations are mostly with foreign policy, where I am more in line with neoconservatives.  Most Paulites would score in the 131-159 range, which I classify as borderline anarchist.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter.

CBS News/New York Times Social Issues Survey

Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, OR gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, OR there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship?

Among Democrats

• Allowed to legally marry 45%
• Civil unions 27%
• No legal recognition 23%

Among Republicans

• Allowed to legally marry 13%
• Civil unions 35%
• No legal recognition 48%

Among Independents

• Allowed to legally marry 35%
• Civil unions 30%
• No legal recognition 32%

Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it, abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now, abortion should not be permitted?

Among Democrats

• Generally available 47%
• Available but limits 39%
• Should not be permitted 13%

Among Republicans

• Generally available 18%
• Available but limits 43%
• Should not be permitted 36%

Among Independents

• Generally available 35%
• Available but limits 42%
• Should not be permitted 19%

More than 35 years ago, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe versus Wade established a Constitutional right for women to obtain legal abortions in this country. In general, do you think the Court’s decision was a good thing or a bad thing?

Among Democrats

• Good thing 74%
• Bad thing 21%
• Both good/bad (Vol.) 1%

Among Republicans

• Good thing 40%
• Bad thing 51%
• Both good/bad (Vol.) 7%

Among Independents

• Good thing 63%
• Bad thing 30%
• Both good/bad (Vol.) 2%

Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?

Among Democrats

• Yes, overturn 23%
• No, not overturn 71%

Among Republicans

• Yes, overturn 45%
• No, not overturn 47%

Among Independents

• Yes, overturn 25%
• No, not overturn 68%

(more…)

Speaker Gingrich penned an excellent article on the power shift of banking regulation to Ben Bernanke.  The Speaker highlights the negative impact Sarbanes-Oxley has had on American enterprise and suggests the new regulation would have a similarly negative impact on our competitiveness in the global economy.  

The financial regulatory regime announced by the Obama Administration is Sarbanes-Oxley on steroids; yet another power-grabbing, bureaucratic trap for the financial sector.

 

Especially troubling is Obama plan’s drastic expansion of the Federal Reserve’s authority over the economy, what the plan itself calls “the biggest changes to the Federal Reserve’s authority in decades.”

 

The Fed would become nation’s “systemic risk” regulator. It gains unprecedented authority to “unwind” any “troubled” firm, and the power to subpoena any document from any corporation—public or private—foreign or American.

 

Worse, under the Obama plan the impartiality of the Fed— key to the function of our financial system since the 1913 Federal Reserve Act—is replaced by politics. In some cases, the Fed would need to obtain written permission from the Treasury Secretary to perform certain actions.

 

So not only does the Obama plan expand the power of the Federal Reserve, it gives Treasury—an agency run by a political appointee—a vehicle through which to assert influence on how that power is to be wielded. This is a stunningly dangerous change.