YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

"The State of Minnesota tax-funded abortion figures are in for the calendar year 2006. Though Regions Hospital claimed 11% of all tax-funded abortions, it received more that 34% of our tax dollars to pay for the killing of unborn babies ($576,061.73 of the $1,652,977.83 state total for 2006)." *

*Source: Pro-Life Action Ministries

And guess where your state senator and state representative stand on abortion funding today. But really, do you have to guess? Don't guess -KNOW!!

War Never Accomplishes Anything

This sentiment is expressed on bumper stickers and heard all too frequently. Of course this sentiment does not comport with history, but those touting it generally do not know or respect history.

On Memorial Day we remember our US veterans who died in war. Any view that claims war is pointless discredits veterans and their service.

The US is young, recent in time and an extension of European history. Consider that we would not have Memorial Day to celebrate if world events had gone a different way than they have.

Look at this animated map to see the spread of the world’s 5 major religions. It takes only 90 seconds to view it. World history must never be divorced from an understanding of religion.

Roman Europe was influenced by Christianity as it gradually spread across Europe from the Middle East in the first six centuries A.D.

Islamic statism, beginning in the Middle East after 570 A.D. when Mohammad was born, had invaded the Iberian Peninsula (Spain), gaining a foothold in Europe. Islam was turned back at the Battle of Tours in 732 by Charles Martel of the Franks. This battle stopped the march of Islamic statism and Sharia law into Europe from the west and preserved Europe for Christianity.

If the Franks had not defeated the Islamists then, Europe may have been much different than it became. This battle alone destroys the idea that war never accomplishes anything. Europe and its American descendant may have become Islamic.

Another watershed battle occurred in 1588 when Protestant England defeated the Catholic statist Spanish Armada. After the Reformation of 1517, England was in the early stages of breaking with old Roman Catholic Europe. England became a firmly Protestant, Anglican statist nation and spawned the American Colonies. The Reformation, begun in Europe, came to fruition in America, bringing religious freedom unknown anywhere in the world prior to the formation of the US Constitution.

The American Colonists declared themselves free from Anglican statist England and fought the War of Rebellion to back up their declaration. Then we went back to Europe to free them from anti-God Nazi statism in World War II and then under President Reagan brought about the collapse of atheistic Communist statism in Eastern Europe. It cannot be denied that the Revolutionary War accomplished great things.

Ideas alone did not set people free. Those ideas lead to war to throw off the shackles of tyrannies which did not want to relinquish control of their masses or lead to war to turn back foreigners who desired to shackle them with unwanted bondage.

If we are of European descent, our very ancestors were living the Reformation a mere 20 generations ago. About 8 generations ago, our ancestors declared their independence from Anglican statism. Our fathers and grandfathers took back Europe from Nazi statism. These are not distant battles of ideas, words and swords. They are as close to us as our ancestors who shaped the world in which their descendants could live in freedom. In many cases, our very ancestors were on the opposite sides of the heated battles, not yet having learned the principles of individual freedom. We have it because some of our ancestors would accept nothing less than freedom. War indeed can be worthy. Let us be grateful. Now it’s our turn to propagate freedom.

Freedom

My personal freedom originates either from within me or outside of me.

If it is from within me, then it is from within all. If that is so, who is the arbiter of my freedom among the freedoms of all others? How can I grant freedom to myself? What power do I have to bestow upon myself such a right? And when all of us exercise such a self-bestowed right, then our individual definitions of that freedom will certainly vary and even contradict each other.

If my freedom originates outside of me, then that is true for all. If so, who gives me, and everyone else, that freedom? Do we grant freedom to each other? Do those who know us grant freedom to us? Perhaps a social club, a school or a church grants freedom to me. Does government grant it to me? Local government? County or state? Federal government? Do I receive my freedom from world government?

If so, then I do not have lasting, enduring, inalienable freedom, for it can then be suspended or removed. This granted freedom is not inherent freedom, for granted freedom can be removed at any time, depending on the beneficence of the grantee.

As a being, I desire freedom from birth to death. I want freedom when I am strong and when I am weak. I want freedom as a defenseless, developing child in the womb to a defenseless, dying one ready to be laid in a tomb. I want freedom to think and act. I want freedom to not act. I want freedom to choose without coercion. I want to act without intimidation.

A studied look around, a mere glance around, convinces me that everyone else has the same desire. I am not unique, for it is in the heart of everyone to be free. How did we all come to have this passion in all our hearts? Why do we all like independence and self-government? Damage or cut off my leg—I want freedom to be mobile. Paralyze me completely and I still desire independence, perhaps more so precisely because my freedom has been impaired. And there I find my freedom in thought. Freedom courses through my brain.

Why do we all have freedom coursing through our minds? Is it because we all consist of the same chemical makeup? If so, how do those chemicals, mere molecules, impart freedom to us as well as the desire to exercise that freedom? How does the physical impart a desire, a passion so hard to quell that life itself may be risked to gain liberty? How do chemicals impart a passion for freedom so strong that it may include risking the destruction of those very molecules?

Freedom is indeed within each of us, but it originates not from us, but from our Creator. In granting life to each of us, our Creator bestowed freedom upon us and the desire to exercise that freedom. It is a right given and unalienable. Those who risked all to gain liberty declared:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When our founding fathers declared their intent to throw off the yoke of the British Crown, they grounded their intent, not in political philosophy of the day, but in the Hebrew thought of the Bible that was at least 4,000 years old. The Judaeo-Christian God created and endowed each person with freedom. Further they asserted, "We hold these truths to be self-evident. . ."

We all are created equal and each of us is endowed, an act performed by our Creator, who must of necessity be free. This endowment consists of bestowing rights upon each created one that are granted by God and no one else. These rights are unalienable. They are intrinsic to our being. These rights cannot be stripped from our being because they are indelibly imprinted on each created person by the Creator. These rights include, but are not limited to, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Our freedom is a derived liberty, bestowed by the Creator. This Christian view of liberty stands in stark contrast to any view that declares government bestows liberty upon individuals. Any government that is so arrogant to conceive it grants freedom can also retract it. Any government that is so arrogant to conceive it grants rights can also retract them.

Any government that recognizes each individual has certain intrinsic, God-bestowed rights which that government should not violate, will tend to be good government. Any government that believes it grants rights will tend toward bad government because it will manufacture rights that are not inalienable and/or it will retract rights that are inalienable or even those manufactured by that government.

Our founding fathers gave us a form of government that was grounded upon individual freedom that is inalienable because it is bestowed by God. Government cannot make freedom inalienable in truth, but in practice. Can we keep it?

Murmur Versus Uproar - An Important Difference

Senator RICK OLSEEN, host for a DFL party at Olseen's rural Harris house earlier this year celebrating the presence of U. S. senate candidate AL FRANKEN, is quoted by ECM Capitol reporter T. W. Budig on May 01, 2008 as declaring that OLSEEN "reports not hearing many murmurs in his (Olseen's) District over Franken's taxes."

OLSEEN is probably right on both counts in that quote: First, Franken's problem is not over Franken's taxes but over Franken's failure to pay his taxes and second, that failure didn't result in murmurs it resulted in a public uproar that has not subsided.

This attempted parsing of words by Olseen in this matter is reminiscent of deated former DFL Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson's famous comment that he "shaved the truth!"

The Arrogance of State Politicians

The state legislature raised the Minnesota budget 9.8% for the biennium, a significant increase. Year after year, the legislature consumes more and more of our incomes, forcing taxpayers to live on less and less. (When does the average wage earner receive this kind of raise?) And then they have the audacity to restrict local government officials to increasing their budgets by a maximum of 3.9%! That is a truck load of chutzpah!

The state budget would not be as low as a 9.8% increase if it were not for the Republicans and Governor Pawlenty. The Dems had proposed $5 billion more spending that was not approved into law. State Dems know no fiscal limits, but demand that board members of local government units be fiscally restrained. Talk about royalty and divine right of kings and queens! Talk about arrogance!

Senator Rick Olseen (D-17) and Rep. Jeremy Kalin (D-17B) are right there with their fellows in this chutzpah.

Minneapolis Star Editorial Tells the Truth!

Read the "Strib" lead editorial for May 23, 2008 and you will find that the DFL legislature did not even come close to solving the current or future education funding problem in spite of their majority status.

Sen. Olseen and Rep. Kalin, powerhouses of education influence, experience, interest and promises came away essentially empty-handed. And forget about the DFL bragging about the $51 per pupil added funding - according to the Star that is a one-time deal and then we are back in the same financial troubled waters as we look to the future.

Obama is right! We need a change.

On the Importance of Prepositions!

We elected Senator Olseen and Representative Kalin to do a job FOR us.

We find, instead, that they did a job ON us in the recently concluded legislative session.

Look Out OPEC!

The US Congress aims to sue OPEC.

The failed energy policy of US lawmakers is coming home to haunt them. Blocking the ability to drill for oil in ANWR and large areas off-shore, plus restrictions so tough that no oil refineries have been built for thirty years (we import 20% of refined gasoline), has put US lawmakers in a bind. Gasoline and diesel fuel prices have skyrocketed and are adding costs to every other area of life.

Rather than create the opportunity to increase domestic supply, just sue foreigners. They are the problem, not our lawmakers.

What else can a bunch of lawyers do? No wonder there are so many lawyer jokes. OPEC will now be coming up with more than a few.

Lawyer politicians must do something to show they are helping and are not themselves the problem. How nice of them! If this legislation passes, these lawyers will be spending our money to try to get OPEC to reduce their income. In the end, these lawyers will have spent more of our money than if they left it alone. So gas will cost us more. Brilliant! Just brilliant!

Smiling All the Way to Socialist Enslavement

Obama, the darling of the Leftist/Socialist media, has said that it is "time for a change." But that same Obama is careful never to divulge or define or explain what that change will consist of if he should become President.

Like Castro in the 50's, Obama presents himself to the American people as an amiable fellow who hides behind a broad smile and a glad hand. And, of course, the socialist media hype him to the hilt but reality will be of an entirely different kind if he should be elected.

Obama has all the qualities of a dictator and that toothsome smile can change in an instant and the other side of who he really is will be discovered only after it is too late.

Already Obama is "dictating" the terms of discussion centering about him. You can't talk about his wife, his family, his preacher, his most liberal record of all time in the Senate, you can't talk about his trafficking with extremely questionable characters over the years, you can't discuss his extremely limited qualifying experience and on and on one could go.

Any other candidate for the presidency is always subject to fine-tooth-comb examination But not Obama - close examination of him and his history is forbidden territory.

In short, Obama has nothing to offer by way of experience that would qualify him for the high office of President of the United States and to elect him would be a national disaster.

One can only hope that the American people will have sense enough to not elect this smiling socialist cum ?? If the people don't have that sense then, like the people of Cuba and other socialist countries, they will have to remember with sadness that they were warned.

Political Bluster

Helpful politician, Jeremy Kalin (D-17B), declared that he was writing to Congress to ask them to stop pumping oil into the Strategic Oil Reserve in order to reduce the price of gasoline.

Well, Kalin got his wish even if he did not influence it. Congress has passed legislation to stop buying oil to pump into the reserve. The current contract will expire in July.

The oil reserve currently holds 701,000,000 barrels. At the rate of adding 76,000 barrels/day, it has taken 9,224 days (25 years, starting in the 1970s) to fill the reserve to 97% capacity.

The oil consumption in the US is about 21,000,000 barrels per day (here and here: somewhat dated figures). That gives about 33 day’s supply of oil if the US could not buy foreign oil or pump any domestic oil. That is a small reserve. It is called the Strategic Oil Reserve for a reason.

Diverting 76,000 barrels per day from the strategic oil reserve to consumption is supposed to reduce the cost of gasoline by a few cents per gallon according to Kalin. One article above says it ". . . might help lower the price of gasoline."

President Bush has argued ". . . that such a relatively small amount of oil would not influence prices." Indeed, the President is correct because the oil that has been stockpiled per day is only 0.36% of the total oil consumed in the US per day.

Let’s assume the extra fuel actually helps reduce the cost of gasoline. Let’s assume each $3.75 gallon of gasoline is lowered by the 0.36% extra fuel. That would save 1.3 cents per gallon ($3.75 x 0.36%, best case scenario).

That’s not going to help much. But politicians, whether in the US Congress or a Minnesota Representative like Kalin, just have to "do something." After all, it all depends on them. They will help us. Neither the news media nor Kalin will do the math to show the above to present to their readers or constituents. If Kalin would, his declaration of help would be viewed as absolutely insignificant and meaningless. Leaving all the hard numbers out of view, he can come off as the helping, beneficent hand. His view and letter did no more to drop the cost of gasoline than the disinterest of my ninety year old aunt. But gullible people will think he has done a great service.

The Omniphobia Epidemic

By James Lewis

Let us now take counsel of our fears.

We're afraid of ozone and CO2. We're afraid of smog and cigarette smoke. We're afraid of Republicans because they are warmongers, and of Democrats because they are in utter denial of the real world. We're afraid the earth is warming -- or freezing. Our bee populations are now collapsing. A new kind of voracious ant is invading. Only 20,000 polar bears are left in Alaska, way down, from, oh, about 20,000 previously. Flesh-eating bacteria are attacking people in Africa, again. According to the Daily Telegraph of London, we should be afraid of fat people because they pollute more than skinny ones -- don't ask why -- but we're also worried about millions of skinny people who are finally getting their chance to eat better.

We're afraid of drilling for too much oil. But we're also afraid of pumping too little oil. We could switch to nuclear-powered electric energy, like the French have done, but that word "nuclear" just turns people off. Nuclear plants might just go up in a mushroom cloud some day, or so the naïve believe. We could exploit our huge coal reserves, but coal looks dirty.

See the pattern? It sounds like omniphobia to me, the fear of everything. Omniphobia was never seen before in the annals of medicine, at least not before the most media-maddened society in history. (That's us.) But you can't miss it today. Omniphobia is all around us, and it'll get us in the end.

Once upon a time, liberals listened to a man who famously said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." How times change!

Let me add a new phobia for your personal delectation. Remember, CO2 is what you breathe out. Oxygen is what you breathe in. We know that CO2 will destroy the earth through fire and ice, according to the celebrated scientist Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. But did you know that long before we burn, a hundred years from now, innocent little oxygen will kill you? It's a fact.

Now this is frightening, because oxygen is practically the only good chemical left, in the public's mind. Just look at all the laundry detergents that come with "cleansing oxygen!" That's a big selling point, because oxygen sounds like it's good for you. It's in the air you breathe! In mountain resorts like Aspen the stores sell "oxygen bottles" for twenty dollars apiece to help tourists breathe at the high altitude. Unfortunately those bottles only contain pressurized air, which is about 21% oxygen, exactly what you get by taking a breath that's free of charge. Some capitalist swine is taking an air pump, probably in his local garage, and pumping air into spray cans, marking it up $19.95, and getting rich because "oxygen" sounds so good.

But it's all a myth peddled by Big Air. Oxygen will kill you, because all the molecules in your body get oxidized. All the good tofu you're eating, all the vitamins, the healthy fish oil, all the cells in your body eventually get oxidized. True.

That oxygen you breathe in falls apart into nasty killer molecules called "free radicals" (no known relation to Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, but it's the same basic idea). Free radicals latch onto the nearest good molecule and stop it from working. That's why antioxidants like Vitamin C and E are important. They hunt down the free oxygen radicals like tiny Elliot Nesses, and cart them to jail.

Unfortunately, with every breath you take you get more oxygen, and make more free radicals. If you have wrinkly skin, you can blame free radicals. If you're getting arthritis, it's those radicals again. If your skin is peeling after a day at the beach, guess what? Yup.

Oxygen isn't the safest molecule in the world. It's practically the scariest.

So what can we do? We are not supposed to breathe out because we're polluting the planet with CO2. We're not supposed to breathe in, because we're putting killer oxygen into our bodies. We can't pass gas, because methane is a greenhouse gas. We can't eat meat because animal protein is destroying the earth. And we can't plant and eat veggies, because trillions of plants around the globe just keep on putting out ... more oxygen.

Well, excuse me for breathing, as they used to say in Brooklyn. They thought that was a big joke. But that was before the age of ecological enlightenment.

We're doomed.

Before I forget, will the last guy outta here please turn off the lights?

We do have a Planet to save, you know.

___________________________________________

A couple of days ago, my friend said she was heading home to plant more trees to increase her carbon offset credits in case Al Gore got vicious. Now I will have to tell her she is adding to the oxygen problem. She will be oxidizing everything! Boy that sounds bad!

A Random Thought from Thomas Sowell

At one time, to call someone "green" was to disparage them as inexperienced or immature. Today, to call someone green is to exalt them as one of the environmentalist saviors of the planet. But it is amazing how many people are green in both senses. Some people who think it is wrong to tell children to believe in Santa Claus nevertheless think it is all right to tell adults to believe that the government can give the whole population things that we cannot afford ourselves. Believing in Santa Claus is apparently bad for children but OK for adults.

Source

The Left's Racist Groupthink

By Michael Reagan
FrontPageMagazine.com Friday, May 16, 2008

The big difference between Republicans and liberal Democrats is the way each party views people. Republicans see us as individuals and respect our God-given human dignity. To left-wing Democrats, we're not individuals; we're members of a herd with all the dignity of a cow or pig, dependent on its owner for daily rations of hay or slop.Democrats see us as being white or as blacks or as straights or as gays, or as lesbians or as heterosexuals, or as rich or poor, or as Christians or as Jews or as Muslims, or as young or as old, as working or as retired, or as housewives or as career women.

They submerge us into pools that define us as members of groups instead of as what we are as God sees us -- as any father sees his children -- each being different from one another, and each child being a separate and distinct individual with his or her own specific talents and abilities, and all deserving of his love.

Republicans see us all as Americans, all united in our desire to see this nation grow and prosper, and be safe and secure, and to provide opportunities to everyone no matter our group membership.

Democrats see us as members of groups, each with specific goals often at odds or competing with the goals other groups. To them you have no existence except as being a small part of a bloc or several blocs. Instead of seeking to treat you as a person, they aim not to satisfy your individual needs and desires but only those of your group.

This Marxist view of human nature embraces group-think, despises individuality, and seeks to eliminate all vestiges of the dignity to which every human being created in the image and likeness of God is entitled. Only the hopes and aspirations of the groups matter, and they matter solely because they create dependency on the state -- which seeks to supplant God as the source of all that is good and necessary for survival.

Grouping Americans allows the Democrats to gather the herd and drive it into their pen. Since each group needs a shepherd, the liberals are only too happy to name one to guide it. The anointed shepherd, of course, is one who can be relied upon to toe the Democrats’ party line.

And so the black group finds itself led and defined by a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton. The fact that the members of the black American groups are given no say in determining who speaks for them or is their leader makes no difference. If you are black, you are not Jackie Robinson or Tiger Woods. You are a member of the black herd-group, and Jesse Jackson is your shepherd. And Jesse Jackson, who gives new meaning to the term "shepherd's crook," is led around by the Democrats if he wants to continue as a shepherd.

If you are a member of the female group your spokespersons are the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barbra Streisand, Nancy Pelosi, or whatever shrew is the head of NOW or NARAL or EMILY's List. All are loyal Democrats. Republicans need not apply for the job of shepherding the human ewes.

If you have Hispanic background, step in line and follow Gov. Bill Richardson into the Democratic sheep pen. And if you are a laborer or pipe fitter or an employee of federal, state or local government your shepherds are all loyal Democratic labor bosses.

This division of people into groups, and groups into political blocs, is necessary because the powers that be want to negotiate with groups rather than with individual Americans, and with group leaders they choose rather than with leaders chosen by the members of the groups. And when federal dollars are doled out, they pass through the sticky hands of the groups' leaders.

And this is a party that allegedly celebrates diversity among individuals.

Mike Reagan is the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan.

2008 Legislative Accomplishments

Governor Pawlenty has released his list of accomplishments from the 2008 legislative session. Click here for the list or download it in pdf format.

The Governor highlights:

Budget Balanced

The $935 million projected state budget deficit is erased and the budget is balanced for FY 08-09 without raising taxes.

Overall state government spending is reduced.

Progress is made toward resolving the projected budget deficit for FY 10-11.

Global Warming Intimidation

Many thanks to Patrick Tepoorten who pointed to an article on global cooling—that’s right, global cooling. Look at the last portion of the article which I believe is the most significant part of the piece—even more significant than the noted dropping temperature.

The author tells of a behind-the-scenes effort to intimidate a writer to change his article which gave too much encouragement to global warming skeptics. Jo Abbess, global warming activist, attempted to get Roger Harrabin to tone down his piece.

She bragged to her fellows:

Climate Changers,

Remember to challenge any piece of media that seems like it's been subject to spin or scepticism.

Here's my go for today. The BBC actually changed an article I requested a correction for, but I'm not really sure if the result is that much better.

Judge for yourselves...

Read the above declaration to her fellow global warming activists here and then some comments about Jo’s action.

The main article mentioned above points out that Jo Abbess did not like this article written by Roger Harrabin which reported a dropping of the world wide temperature. Jo didn’t like its message so attempted to get it changed. The editor and author explain the controversy here.

When Abbess threatened to discredit and expose Harrabin as someone who has been influenced by the global warming skeptics, she is avoiding data and evidence and making a personal attack to stifle that evidence. Evidence of cooling in the face of the ardently held view of warming unhinges these people. Refutation of fact cannot be accomplished so they resort to public embarrassment of the one propounding the evidence. This is a form of blackmail in which the activist threatened to deprive the reporter and/or commentator of his reputation.

Global warming has been sold to us without evidence and even contrary to evidence. It is popularly held among the elite to the point that politicians such as President George Bush cave to it to some degree and Senator John McCain talks the line, thinking he needs to in order to be elected.

Americans like to perceive themselves to be devoutly scientifically oriented. In reality, a large number of Americans are scientific dolts. They have no clue how to think within the guidelines of the scientific method and postulate a theory based on testable, repeatable evidence. Rather, they buy into a philosophy without any evidence. They believe in global warming on blind faith.

These same people condemn the religious for doing that. By their own practice, they are the new religionists, clinging to blind faith. Watch out for religionists because anything can be justified in the name of religion. Data and hard core evidence will not stand in their way to protect their goddess, Gaia. Ultimately, their ardently held religious view is dangerous to scientific investigation into true cause and effect because it also tends to forms of blackmail.