While many wonder what Obama has done in the Senate, not enough are questioning what is he trying to do now.

Right now he is trying to force The Global Poverty Act on the people of the United States.

In perhaps one of the clearest indications of Obama's belief that the U.S. should be subject to U.N. influence, the bill includes the expectation that the U.S. would contribute 0.7% of GNP to the United Nations "Millennium Project" and also support the United Nations Millennium Declaration.

This Act would result in the U.S. Taxpayer paying hundreds of billions of dollars to some UN entity to fight poverty around the world (Click here to read AIM article) and implement other UN policies that are likely contrary to the interests of the United States.

The Global Poverty Act would be a foreign policy disaster for the United States. It may pass the Senate with a whimper if citizens don't encourage their Senators to oppose the bill.

Ending poverty is a noble goal. People around the world should identify programs they believe help the billions of people in poverty around the world and should then feel free to send as much of their private wealth to those organizations as they see fit. Micro loans are a great example of a way people can help others around the world.

The people of the United States are having an increasingly difficult time providing for their own families and communities. The United States government should refrain from committing U.S. taxpayers to providing for people around the world- especially as many around the world who live in poverty live in conditions imposed upon them by governments that aren't really interested in an increasing access to economic freedom, which is the real solution to poverty.

As President Obama would clearly lead us down a path towards a stronger UN and a weaker United States, his views on the UN should raise concerns for voters.

For people in Minnesota interested in health care, Craig Westover published a great piece yesterday on the "Health Care Home" and the Health Care Access Fund.

While Minnesota has one of the best health care systems in the country, and therefore the world, the liberal left can not be satisfied with our success using the private sector and free markets. They have decided that Minnesota should not expand upon its success by increasing the ability of the market to improve access to and the quality of health care.

No- good liberals seem to question why Minnesotans get better health care than others and then do all they can to undermine the very aspects of the system that lead to quality care.

So rather than building on our successes, the Democrats in Minnesota are seeking to increase government control over all health care decisions.

This is a complicated issue and few in the fray have attempted to educate Minnesotans about the legislation that could have drastic consequences for consumers of health care. The citizens of Minnesota must depend upon Governor Pawlenty to veto legislation that transfers decision-making power to government gatekeepers.

Let us all hope the Governor stands firm with the people of Minnesota and vetoes any and every bill that undermines the right of the people to maintain control over their health care information and treatment.

As we conservatives sit back eating popcorn and watch the Democrats seem to disintegrate before our eyes, we should be careful not to choke on premature laughter.

As Clinton prepares to use the memory of Bush v. Gore to rally the Super Delegates to her cause, it is easy to cheer her on. Operation Chaos has been funny, but now we should begin to exercise caution.

Clinton will effectively argue, more convincingly after the big win in Pennsylvania, that she does in fact have a lead in the popular vote if all votes are counted. (click here for running total on Real Clear Politics)

Clinton will warn the SDs to look at the bigger picture- that Obama has spent 3 times the money and still couldn't win- even though he is the MSM's presumptive winner. He can not win the big states. She will warn them that he has alienated many outside the base and those independents that voted for him in Iowa might not look at him the same way now as they did then, when he was totally unknown and novel.

She will tell them they should wait to endorse to be sure they don't flock too soon. She will encourage them to not be fooled by slick talk.

She knows that if given time, Obama will sink his own ship. She knows that he fooled people with his phony "Audacity of Hope" rhetoric in the beginning but the story is getting boring. He has one good speech and people will get tired of hearing it again, and again and again. She knows that arrogance does not sit well with those in Middle America and Obama radiates arrogance.

She will assure them that she will work to bring the party together in a way that Obama can not because he is increasingly losing credibility with the working people. The elitist label is being used more often and it is starting to stick.

She will hammer the point that, like Bush in 2000, Obama wants to ignore the votes of the people. He wants to ignore the will of Florida AND Michigan. She will play on the bitter taste that still remains in the mouth of the base and encourage the Super Delegates to be the Court that gets it right. They will have the power to close the gap for one of them. She will argue that the Super Delegates should vote the way their constituencies vote. The Super Delegates from the critical states of California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York and Texas should follow the will of their people and vote for her.

And ultimately, she will say that all of the Super Delegates from the Obama states should think about whether or not the people of their state would vote the same way today as they did in the early primaries. She will remind them that she is a known entity and that her skeletons have all been out of the closet for years. If Super Delegates pledged their vote to Obama they should reconsider in June, based on the information that has since become available. She will challenge them to think about the consequences of an Obama loss that will likely follow the months of scrutiny he will now face. She will tell them that once all the primaries are finished, she will suspend her campaign if Obama has the lead.

And in private she will assure them that she will reach out to Obama to rehab his image and coach him to future success- she will help to prepare him to lead. If it is necessary, she will even offer him the VP slot to appease them.

Her warnings will be clear and they will be on the money.

Obama is an elitist and who seems to be turning Hillary Clinton into the woman of the people. Obama's far left politics help Clinton seems like a moderate.

Clinton and Obama are both beatable in November, but Obama is an easier target. While conservatives hope that Clinton does the dirty work of digging up the truth of Obama's extremism, they should also fear her success if she destroys him.

Life could be worse- you could live in Chicago (click here for article)

6 people were killed, 32 people shot- in less than 72 hours.

At least one of the victims is not cooperating with the police- now that is shocking...

Some police blamed warmer temperatures for the violence- it actually hit 75 degrees on Saturday- and the police project they will be having a very busy summer. If this is true, maybe they should be evacuating the city before June when the temperature might be what- 80 degrees.

I wonder if the many people who went on these shooting sprees are the people Obama thinks cling to their guns?

No, actually the people Obama criticized usually register their weapons and use them primarily for hunting animals. And they tend to vote more center-right on the political spectrum.

I would guess that Obama does pretty well with the voters of Chicago. Maybe he should think about who the bitter people are and what he could do to actually help them- or at least their victims.

Rather than pretend the temperature is the actual cause of violence in the city, maybe the voters of Chicago should think about how and why their city has disintegrated into such a "hot" bed of violence...

Apparently there was a lack of material available for children whose mothers rely on plastic surgery to make themselves beautiful.

In response to this pressing need, a "renowned" plastic surgeon has filled the void with his tale of a woman who needed a nose job and a tummy tuck to feel better about herself. (click here for Newsweek article on book)

Luckily, the mom ends up more beautiful than ever after her surgery and the child in the story is very happy with the new and improved mommy.

There is no end to the insanity. Maybe kids need a book to tell the tale of an emotionally needy woman who, rather than getting psychotherapy to determine why can't accept herself and see her inner beauty or why she is so afraid of aging, relies on plastic surgery.

The book, My Beautiful Mommy, will hit bookstores on Mother's Day. Sadly, expect it to hit the New York Times best seller list.

I only know that if my husband buys this book, there will be consequences...

Also interesting- the flap about the flag pin and his answer.

Obama chooses not to wear the pin that virtually all politicians wear. This is an outward expression of support for the United States that Obama chooses not to offer.

This is fair game. ABC allowed a woman to ask Obama about how he feels about the flag.

Media elite Jake Tapper (ABC News' Senior National Correspondent in DC) is shocked a woman who, he thinks, should be very upset about all that America has done to fail her, chose to raise the issue of the flag pin. (click here for his comments)

Unlike Tapper, this woman understands that no matter how bad any American has it individually, we are all so much better off than those around the world who suffer at the hands of governments that abhor freedom.

Obama didn't really answer her question about wearing the flag but said he revered the flag and America and regaled us, again, with his story about being born to a teenage mom, raised by a single mom and having grandparents from small towns in Kansas...

Not to be nit picky about his efforts to play on the struggle of teen moms across this country but the real story (click here for Chicago Trib article):

• Stanley Ann (his mom) was nearly 19 and a college student when she married a graduate student and became a mom.
• She got divorced from Obama's father when he abandoned her to go to HARVARD.
• Barack Obama was a toddler when they divorced and his mother remarried two years later.
• Her years as a single mom were limited to two.
• And she had the full support of her parents, also something many single parents lack...

Obama sure likes to play on stereotypes when he thinks they benefit him.

and was Obama flipping Hillary off in this post debate talk? (Click here) You decide...

The "debate" fallout continues for Clinton and Obama.

Anyone who watched the debate and then has listened to Obama whine about the questions should recognize the real reason Obama is not ready for prime time. The questions Obama didn't like are questions that raise concerns about his judgement. And there are clearly questions about his judgement.

ABC could have hit both of the candidates much harder. Clearly, Obama doesn't like to be put on the spot without prepared comments. This is why he, and the rest of his party, refused to participate in a debate organized by Fox News. They feared the possible questions Brit Hume or Chris Wallace might ask. The Democrats decided to participate in a debate moderated by ABC because they thought they were in friendly territory.

In the end, even friendly ABC wasn't nice enough for Obama. Now his poor performance is their fault not his. Stephanopoulos and Gibson are on the hot seat for their choice of questions. They, at least, seem willing to answer the questions about their performance. (click here for article)

We should all realize that when Obama says he is about CHANGE, he really just means he is changing which special interest group will have influence in Washington. He is just as much a political opportunist as those he rails against. The real difference between Obama and his political opponents are who they choose to cozy up to: Obama has used the networking of people who very vocally denounce the United States and despise "White culture" and White people (Wright), people who committed acts against our country (Ayers). Obama took their help but now wants people to accept that he doesn't agree with their positions and shouldn't be tainted by their actions.

There are countless politicians whose careers have been derailed by the taint of supporters who would like to have been held to the same lack of standards Obama demands.

I hoped the American people would, en masse, watch the Democratic Presidential Debate Wednesday night. It was a tough call- the future of the United States vs. Which 6 will remain on American Idol...

And the winner was....

American Idol with over 22 million viewers. The Debate: Almost 11 million viewers.

It is no wonder our country is in trouble...

Maybe we should consider running our primary season like Idol. Each party could hold tryouts around the country and then put out the summary shows during which the best and the worst would be highlighted. Can you see James Carville and Karl Rove telling candidates: You're going to Iowa, baby!

We would have a few weeks of "Hollywood" during which candidates would be coached by the "experts" on policy, how to talk like a preacher or a Midwesterner and how to look into the camera and appear sincere. The judges could each ask one or 2 questions of each candidate each week. The American people would vote on Tuesdays and then the next night we would get to watch the candidates sweat as some moderate moderator tells him or her "You're safe" or "The people have voted and you________ are going home."

Then, when we narrowed the search for America's next President down to two, they would each have to introduce their VP choice. We could have a couple of weeks of debates and then- we vote.

No exit polls, no around the clock analysis of how the counts are rolling in. America would vote one night and then the answer would be broadcast the next night.

I can hear it now: America voted and our next President is...

Unbeknownst to many, privacy rights in relation to personal health information are being increasingly threatened.

Minnesotans are fortunate to have the the Citizen's Council on Health Care, run by the very well-informed Twila Brase, alerting us to the many threats on both health care and our privacy rights related to health care. (click here for CCHC link)

There is an assault on privacy at all levels of government as public health officials begin to collect and store data on newborns- often via newborn screening to identify metabolic and genetic disorders and others subject to their reach. Congress has recently passed a bill to allow a national "DNA warehouse" to store genetic information on individuals. (click here for link to bill S. 1858) If George Bush signs this bill, Americans will have lost at least some of their right to genetic privacy. I wonder if those in support of this bill actually read it...

And then we have individuals around the country looking for ways to store their medical information so it is more accessible to them. This has become increasingly important as people often need to frequently change providers and then face barriers in transferring records in a timely and coordinated fashion.

In response to consumer demand, Google and Microsoft have begun to enter into the business of health record storage.

Now, the NY Times has published an article outlining potential privacy issues for people who use these services. (click here for article)

So, while Congress passes bills that sound nice, but actually undermine our rights, it ignores some very real problems that need addressing. Health care information often contains the most personal details of our lives. People with access to this information must know that they will be held accountable for any efforts to undermine or violate any person's privacy rights. Companies whose policies don't protect privacy should know they will be held accountable.

I am no fan of government paternalism, but do recognize that there should be safeguards protecting the rights of individuals.

Government exists to protect our rights, not usurp them...

I can not imagine why any women would agree to live a polygamist lifestyle.

Without question, if a 16 year old girl's parents forced her to marry an adult and then to become pregnant, the state would have reason to get involved in protecting that particular girl and in prosecuting the adult male involved.

That being said, the situation in Texas should be raising red flags for all Americans. (click here for article and here)

There are over 400 children ranging from infants to adolescents who have been taken from their parents- all based on two phone calls from a single young woman who expressed concerns about her own situation. It seems the state of Texas remains unable to locate this woman or determine if she in fact exists. It does not seem that there were allegations about every parent of the children removed from their homes.

It does not seem clear that all of the women were forced to marry against their will, or even that they were all minors at marriage or when their children were born. It does not seem clear that all of the children are being abused, even if in fact some of them are.

The state of Texas has assured the public that it is acting in the best interests of the children. Really...

Many of these children have been subjected to invasive medical exams, questioning about issues they may likely know nothing about, taken from their mother(s) and the only environment they have ever known. There does not seem to be clear evidence that all of these children were being abused by their parents. There can be no doubt the situation the state has created is traumatizing them.

The state asserts how concerned they are that some of the children don't know who their parents are and some seem to think they have multiple mothers. Many children in our society have multiple mothers- there are books in many schools about having "two mommies" and no dad- is it better to have two moms and no dad than it is to have two moms and a dad? Or two dads and no mom versus two dads and a mom. Increasingly homosexual couples are partnering to have children- those kids have two dads and two moms. Does the state of Texas intend to remove these children from their parents? Are spiritual marriages legal marriages in Texas? Is it okay for people in non-marital situations to co-habitate with as many others as they want but those who attempt to contractually provide for their families through marital relationships pose the real problem? What about kids whose parents have been divorced, sometimes repeatedly- are they in jeopardy?

When does the majority culture get to take children away from people whose lifestyles differ, just because?

This is an incredibly messy situation in which there is a bit of clarity- these people were targeted because the state- or at least some people who work for the state- find the religious practices of the sect immoral.

The state has assured citizens that each child will be represented by an attorney. Well- who decides which attorney? Does the attorney represent the child? Attorneys for children are put in a difficult position- they are not generally psychologists trained to evaluate what is in the child's best interest. They are not guardian ad litums, who also make recommendations based on the best interest standard. Attorneys represent their client. If the child is the client, then the attorney, whether they like it or not, should represent what the child wants to the court.

Because there is at least a reasonable chance that many of the attorneys volunteering to represent the children are in fact children's rights attorneys who may have a bias against the polygamist parents, the court should be careful to avoid future charges of attorney malpractice.

Texas authorities are separating children from parents under the guise of ensuring the children feel free to tell the truth. In Minnesota we dealt with a sex abuse scandal in the 1980s that ultimately led to the very public disgrace of the prosecutor involved. Children, scared and away from familiar people did in fact embellish facts. Texas authorities should be very wary of any actions that would prejudice whatever legitimate concerns they may have.

It is hard to believe the State of Texas has not seriously overreached in this situation. Now, to avoid admitting the mistake, the state appears to be digging in its heals.

A polygamist sect is a fairly easy target in that most educated people do not support polygamy. This sect is a group of fringe Christians with few supporters.

I live not far from the city of Minneapolis and as a foster parent know that there are hundreds if not thousands of children born to teenage moms every year. Go to larger cities like Chicago and New York and there are many, many more teenagers in this situation. Many of these young women were impregnated by adult men who abandoned them either before or after the baby was born. Who knows how many young teenagers took the morning after pill or had abortions to address a pregnancy by an adult male. These teenagers are of every race and religion- it is a problem exacerbated by socioeconomics.

Complicate the situation in the inner cities with drugs, gangs, single parents, illiteracy etc.

No one could tell me with a straight face that a baby born to a teen mom who has no support system is any better off, from a health and wellness standpoint, than the children in Texas. In fact, many attorneys could and would argue that the child in the sect is better off.

What would happen if Child Protective Services invaded a part of the city that is not totally unlike the compound in Texas. There may not be a fence around some of the neighborhoods in Minneapolis, but there are clear areas in which everyone knows kids are being harmed. The truth is there are not enough places to put all of the kids who are in fact being abused and neglected. If CPS took over 400 kids into protective custody in one day from a targeted neighborhood, every ACLU chapter in the country would be volunteering to help the parents.

If we really care about the children, we should apply the same standard of removal to all children. In the end, the system targets those it wants to, not always those it needs to.

Again, I think polygamy is wrong and that teenage girls should be preparing for college, not marriage and parenthood.

I think good parents ensure their children have the ability to avail themselves of all that society has to offer.

I also know that what I think should be the ideal is not the standard that CPS can impose on all parents in its efforts to remove children from their parental home.

Texas has taken actions that should be, and will be, heavily scrutinized. Over time, the truth will shake out.

We all should hope that the rights of the parents and children were not usurped on the basis of religious discrimination or personal feelings.

As a person who feels strongly that the state should intervene on behalf of children being abused and neglected more quickly than it often does, I fear that this situation will set back the children's rights movement and discourage other prosecutors from acting on legitimate reports in the future.

If the prosecutor has acted improperly, the sanctions, and the apologies, should be swift and public...

In the midst of all that is happening in the world right now, I was just blessed with the opportunity to stop and remember the short life of a miraculous little girl, Amber Rose Kimlinger.

For those touched by the gift of her spirit, there is so much that never needs to be said. This child demonstrated grace with every breath she took. (click here to read a Star Tribune article about Amber and her family)

Amber was born with a rare syndrome that most assumed would limit her life to only a few short days. With love and care, this child fought to live. She endured much but fought on. If she had lacked will, she would surely not have survived the many times her life flirted with death.

Amber grew to love her parents, her sister, her grandparents, Elmo, the many people who entered the circle of her life and life itself. Amber was so much more than most people could ever see. Amber gave so much more to her community and the world than many do in their healthy lives that span decades.

For those who never had the opportunity to know her or her family, it would be difficult for mere words to convey the many reasons why they all deserve our respect, love and gratitude.

Amber's parents, Tom and Lisa, are the sort of people that we should all strive to be like. No matter what challenges they have had to face (and as an outsider I feel able to say that they have faced more than most of us could ever imagine) they turned to each other and to their faith and plunged into living.

I have several children with disabilities and hope that I am the parent, and the advocate, they deserve. When I struggle with decisions about my kids and our lives, I often think of Tom and Lisa- of their spirit and their faith.

I am sure that they have their moments of "Why?" They are just as human as the rest of us. But in the end, they seem to have so much more than many of us.

Where did and do they find their strength? Their commitment to each other and their beautiful daughters? The confidence to challenge the doctors and the medical system that often understandably didn't know what to do to help ease their daughter's pain but also didn't seem interested in figuring it out? How did they develop the ability to find joy in every accomplishment and every milestone and also in the many seemingly sorrowful experiences, as well?

I know they find their strength through their faith and this faith carries them full steam ahead through long tunnels and up steep hills.

When my faith wavers and my hopes dim, when I have tough days and the kids aren't doing as well as I hope, I pray "Thy will be done." I also pray for the strength to live like Lisa and Tom.

My prayers are with Amber and Lisa and Tom and their family. I ask that yours be as well.

In loving memory of Amber Rose Kimlinger...

The University of St. Thomas, in Minneapolis/St. Paul has engaged in what it must see as a justified battle to save its undergrad students from the evils of the influence of the Young America's Foundation.


This foundation provides financial support to student groups around the country that seek to provide students with information that liberal, elitist professors often deny them.The YAF is an amazing resource that is necessary to counter the messages of academia that routinely belittle conservatives and the often ideology that was at the core of this country's founding.


It's tool, the denial of speaking space to Star Parker, a brilliant woman who speaks of her personal experiences as a woman on welfare. She was invited to speak to students about the consequences of abortion in minority communities. The YAF agreed to pay a portion of her speaking fee.

One might think the University would welcome opportunity to encourage students to challenge their beliefs by listening, respectfully, to those who might challenge their views. (Although one should stop to ponder how it came to be that a pro-life speaker might upset the powers-that-be at a Catholic University.)

Why would a Catholic University close it's doors to a pro-life speaker?


As a graduate of the law school at the University of St. Thomas, I am amazed at the short sightedness of the woman at the center of this fire storm. The Vice President of Student Affairs, Jane Canney told Katie Kieffer, the young woman behind this effort to educate students, "As long as I'm a vice president at St. Thomas, we will not deal with Young America's Foundation."


That being said, there is clearly more than one solution to the problem at hand...


Kathy Kersten, a columnist at the Star Tribune, wrote about this PR disaster and educational travesty on Monday. Her column (click here to read column) unleashed a firestorm and now the University must decide how to remedy this situation and also how to prevent this sort of ignorant, or perhaps arrogant, decision from being made in the future.

According to Kersten's column, Parker plans to speak whether or not the University offers her space.

I hope she comes and delivers a message of truth from Summit Avenue.

I plan to be there and I am sure I will not be alone...

If the Scotsman is correct that Jimmy "Lets Talk To Hamas" Carter and Al "The World is Going to Melt" Gore really do plan to confront Hillary and try to convince her to leave the campaign, that could be a meeting to end all meetings... (click here for story reported by Fox)

Clinton should be prepared to tell Carter, publicly, that she is not interested in the support of a person who does not understand why he should not be meeting with Hamas. It is an opportunity for her to put him in his place. He is no elder statesman. He is a man nearly 30 years out from his term in office. He is a man who did not understand the Middle East when he got daily briefings about the region.

Clinton could talk about how important it is for former presidents to respect the office and work with the current administration to ensure there is no confusion about policy.

Clinton could remind the country that Gore ran for the Presidency once and could have run again but he chose not to. She could say that she hopes to work with Gore, after she is elected, on global warming initiatives.

She can say that she respects their right to state their opinions about the race, but that she is more concerned with the future of the Democratic Party than she is with appeasing former Presidents- including her husband...

Hillary should be prepared to explain that Obama is going to crumble- the more he says, the more clear it becomes how far from the mainstream he actually is.

Clinton needs to convince Democratic delegates and super delegates that she is not giving up on the Party and that she is staying in until the last dance.

Neither Carter nor Gore are likely to sign her dance card now but in the end, if Obama continues to criticize middle America with ignorant, insensitive statements they, like all of the other super delegates, will come around.

In the end, she who laughs last, laughs best...


And if you haven't seen it Click here for Glenn Beck video on Clinton's laugh - it is funny

A great "Strategy Room" on Fox News today.

Angela McGlowan, Bob Beckel, Jane Fleming Kleeb and Michael Steele were on the panel.

On Obama's bitter comments:
McGlowan suggests that between the Rev. Wright debacle and Obama's elitist comments last week in San Francisco, some black folks might jump back to Hillary.

Beckel then goes on offense saying that it is a bit ironic for the wealthy millionaires, McCain and Clinton, to assert they are siding with the poor people of Western Pennsylvania. Beckel says that Obama is right- there is a lot of bitterness and there is a lot of anti-immigrant feeling there.

First, will these pro-illegal alien Democrats ever stop spewing their ignorant, hateful rhetoric about conservative, working class Americans? I have NEVER met a conservative who was simply anti-immigrant. In fact, conservatives tend to be very PRO- immigrant. Generally, conservatives believe that legal and orderly immigration is necessary and contributes to the strength of American society. The embittered people in small towns across America that Obama criticized are often anti-illegal alien not anti-immigrant.

Also, Beckel continually tries to drive a wedge between those who are financially successful and those who hope to someday be financially successful. Wealthy people can understand the struggles of those without financial resources just like people who are poor can appreciate the need for our government to lower taxes on both individuals and business to help rebuild a strong economy.

McGlowan was correct to question whether Ed Rendell's past statement that it will be difficult for a Black man to get the White conservative vote may give insight into Obama's comments. (click here for AP article about Rendell's comments) It seems likely that there is a perception by Obama that there are votes he just can't get.

Obama seems unable to accept that fact that the people who don't support him don't support him because of his politics. Obama's challenge is not tied to his race- it is tied to his far left politics. It would be difficult for any far left liberal of any gender or race to get the vote of ANY conservative...

On a lighter note, Brett Baier quoted Obama talking about Hillary:"She says she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley. Hillary Clinton- she's out there in a duck blind every Sunday packing a six-shooter." Obama can be funny...

I doubt there is a serious gun owner in America who thinks Hillary Clinton is the candidate most likely to protect gun rights.

It was a great show, hitting on several key issues, with McGlowan and Steele running circles around Beckel and Kleeb- no surprise there.

People who don't follow politics just don't know what they are missing...

I am generally opposed to increasing taxes on the already overburdened, underrepresented taxpayer. Proposed tax increases are all around us today, in spite of an economy teetering on a serious downturn. As taxpayers struggle to meet their monthly personal budgets, Democratic legislators all over the country seem to think that taking more money out of their pockets will help the situation...

A Democrat (of course) from San Jose, California has introduced a proposal to increase the tax from $.02 per beer can or bottle to $0.32 per can or bottle. (click here for article)

Thinking like a Democrat, Assemblyman Jim Beall has suggested that since the tax hasn't been raised since 1991, it is time.

This is an interesting approach to fleecing taxpayers- over time, all taxes should go up. We start at 1% then maybe 3% then why not 10% and then, if enough time has passed, 20% until eventually taxpayers can just hand it all over...

I would like to suggest a different approach, in California, Nevada and Arizona:

Leave the beer drinking American alone and impose a tax only on purchases of Absolut Vodka and target the revenue raised at fighting illegal immigration.

I know Absolut has apologized for its ridiculously ignorant ad but I think Absolut is Scarlett O'Hara sorry- it's all about getting caught...

(Actually, they can't target a tax like this but it is a tax I wouldn't oppose if it were possible)

Anthony Brown has written a truly unbelievably piece in the UK's Daily Mail. (click here to read) Thanks to Drudge for linking to it...

As reports of tainted toys and toothpaste, slave labor, crackdowns on Internet users, ties to the genocide in the Sudan, violence in Tibet and countless other human rights violations continue to pour out of China, American politicians and greedy corporations continue to build relationships with the oppressive regime. Even our airline crisis may be tied to the moving of mechanics' jobs overseas to countries like China. (click here for Reuters article)

The Chinese government is a regime that has brilliantly capitalized on the willingness of the U.S. and countries around the world to ignore its politics and behavior in order to buy $2 t-shirts.

There is no multiculturalism in China. There is no freedom of the press, of religion, of speech. There is no economic freedom for the billion plus peasants working in fields and factories for a penny on the dollar. There is no child protection system. There is no legal system that cares about the rights of the people- there are no rights of the people.

The Olympic Committee's decision to award the summer games to a country that not only oppresses its own people but increasingly uses its power to undermine the security and welfare of people around the globe is indicative of the ignorance and callousness of its members. As the men in blue suits follow the Olympic torch around the world, trying to protect the flame from the thousands and thousands and thousands of people standing up in opposition to China's hosting, the Olympic Committee should feel nothing but shame for the decision they made.

Freedom loving people and countries need to recognize that cheap products today are not worth the risk of oppression tomorrow. China is the fast-growing threat in the world and the sooner the U.S. and free people around the world openly acknowledge this fact the more likely policy will be altered to respond accordingly.

It's no wonder Obama has events closed to the press. The next thing we will hear, he will have banned cell phones, too.

Obama spoke to a crowd at a fundraiser in the sanctuary city San Francisco last week. (click here for article) Obama, thinking he was speaking not on the record, said what rolled naturally off his lips and criticized the people of small towns in Pennsylvania and around the country:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothings replaced them," Obama, an Illinois senator, said. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," he said."

I wonder if he could name a single town in Pennsylvania, or the Midwest, to which he refers.

The truth is, Obama was talking to a friendly crowd on the west coast that he, wink, wink, knew would understand what he meant.

Obama seems to think that people in small towns who are concerned about things like the second amendment, religion and border security are angry, ignorant hicks. These people, who are most likely voting for other candidates, aren't smart enough to get his message- but that's okay: He doesn't need them anyway.

Now, because someone released his speech, voters in small towns have seen a glimpse of the real Obama. We can't have that...

This morning he tried to explain his statements by telling folks in Indiana (and the world) that he just said something "that everybody knows is true."

He explained that these people simply turn to what they can count on, "so people vote about guns or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are comin' over to this country. Or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That's a natural response."

He goes on to explain he didn't say it as well as he should have because "The truth is these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation- those are important, that's what sustains us."

Sometimes, the more he says the less he says.

He has explained nothing and, for people who listened, dug the whole deeper.

What did he say this morning?

Did he mean that people who are frustrated about illegal aliens turn to their guns? Or that people who don't like change turn to their community- which has apparently changed also?

Did he mean to say that Western European Americans who pass their traditions on to their children are frustrated by multiculturalists like Obama who denounce these traditions while telling them that illegal aliens who cling to their culture and their language are completely justified in all that they do?

What did he mean to do this morning?

His goal was to convince America that his message to those in San Francisco was misinterpreted and that he wasn't as articulate as he should have been.

He wants us all to believe that- while he really is the brilliant savior sent to deliver us from all the evil that has been for the last 28 years of Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush-he sometimes isn't as clear as he should be.

People need to wake up from their trance and see Obama for what he really is- an impudent, middle-aged man who is trying to perform at Carnegie Hall after a career singing in bars.

As I turn to my faith and consider learning to shoot a gun I sadly observe that this presidential campaign has become like a political American Idol and Sanjaya (a cute young guy that my kids and their friends really loved) has made it to the final three...

Jimmy Carter...

No one in their right mind would assert this former President deserves to be remembered as anything better than mediocre during his term. The best thing to be said about his presidency is that his debacle opened the door for Ronald Reagan.

After leaving office he focused on The Carter Center and dabbled in some worthwhile service programs like Habitat for Humanity. He apparently was good at pounding nails.

For the last several years Carter and his far left followers have attempted to transform this foreign policy failure into some sort of elder statesman who has developed the ability to bring about peace in the world.

I went back and read the speech Carter gave after winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 (click here to read) hoping to get some insight into his current belief that meeting with leaders of Hamas will promote peace.

Carter spoke of his first career in the military and acknowledged that he "realized that we had to be ready to fight if combat was forced upon us, and we were prepared to give our lives to defend our nation and its principles. At the same time, we always prayed fervently that our readiness would ensure that there would be no war."

Then he describes how he "bore the sobering responsibility of maintaining global stability during the height of the Cold War," which he obviously failed at as there was no global stability during his term. Many would argue the height of the cold war occurred when Reagan escalated it to break the economy of the Soviet Union and bring freedom to countries held behind the iron curtain. Details, details...

Carter spoke of the need to have military strength balanced with "aggressive diplomacy" as countries seek to build friendships with those that "share a common cause."

The truth that a country should build friendships with those that share a common cause is obvious. The real issue seems to be Carter's misguided and erroneous efforts to build these friendships with leaders of Hamas, or Cuba or Venezuela or name any other country run by socialist or communist dictator or religious zealot that Carter seems to put on a moral pedestal.

What exactly would be the common cause the United States shares with Hamas?

Carter mentions Andrei Sakharov in his 2002 speech as a person he reached out to during the cold war. Sakharov was not the leader of a country, he was a Russian scientist who was integral to the early development of nuclear technology in the the Soviet Union yet ultimately critical of the country's leaders. It is nice they became friends but not really relevant to building relationships with countries around the globe.

In 2002, Carter spoke of the U.S. being the only remaining superpower and expressed his belief that that was unlikely to change in our lifetimes.

Sadly, people who agree with Carter have worked to shrink our military, limit our government's funding of foreign intelligence gathering and promote a culture in which the values of multiculturalists demonized American culture at home and around the world.

Today, the United States is faced with several growing threats- one of the greatest being fundamentalist Islamic culture. Radical Islam is followed by China (a country that increasingly is connected to practices that jeopardize the health and safety of United Statians), illegal aliens who ignore our laws, worsen our schools, and increasingly utilize more and more of our social service and health care dollars during a time when the U.S. is facing growing economic challenges and finally Russia, a country with vast natural resources and an educated population that may or may not want to continue on the path that leads to free markets and democracy.

In 2002, Carter proclaimed "Constrained and inspired by historic constitutional principles, our nation has endeavored for more than two hundred years to follow the now almost universal ideals of freedom, human rights, and justice for all."

Did he really believe that freedom, human rights and justice for all were universal ideals? Does he believe this today? Does he think Hamas is really interested in human rights? These things are clearly universal ideals that are rejected by countless countries around the globe, many of which belong to his cherished United Nations.

Carter's lecture continued: "It is clear that global challenges must be met with an emphasis on peace, in harmony with others, with strong alliances and international consensus. Imperfect as it may be, there is no doubt that this can best be done through the United Nations, which Ralph Bunche described here in this same forum as exhibiting a "fortunate flexibility" - not merely to preserve peace but also to make change, even radical change, without violence."

Carter joins with many of his cronies in support of the ridiculous, and dangerous, notion that the UN is the entity best able to bring about international consensus, as though consensus is always the goal.

While it actually may be true that the UN is the global body most able to bring about global consensus, global consensus may often be at odds with U.S. interests. To be sure, there are many, many countries around the world who want nothing more than to diminish the strength of the United States. There are many countries who seek to redistribute the wealth of the United States to other countries around the world. In fact, this redistribution has been occurring for years and we are now seeing the consequences of "free trade" with countries like China. Our weakened economy is certainly tied to jobs leaving the US and the inability of American companies to compete with offshore entities not bound by American laws that, for example, protect workers.

If the UN member states join together against the United States in a push to move the world towards becoming a global community where socialist ideals can be forced on the United States- then there could be consensus. This consensus would undermine the sovereignty of the U.S. The UN can promote treaties to protect the environment that would bind the US, but not India and China. The UN can do many things. Global consensus is not always, or often, in the interests of the United States...

Carter went on to discuss personal responsibility: "We deny personal responsibility when we plant landmines and, days or years later, a stranger to us - often a child – is crippled or killed. From a great distance, we launch bombs or missiles with almost total impunity, and never want to know the number or identity of the victims.

I would love for Jimmy Carter and his supporters to actually engage in a discussion about personal responsibility. He speaks of the "we" who plant landmines taking personal responsibility for the consequences. Certainly land mines are wrong but in the scope of the harm being dome to children around the world there are many more serious problems, like child labor that often borders on or is slavery, abuse and neglect, abandonment, the adoption markets created by western demand for children...

I am interested in the failure of individuals around the world to take responsibility for their actions and the resulting consequences. One of the best examples:

• The people who knowingly engage in sexual behavior that exposes uninfected partners to HIV/AIDS. We spend billions of dollars fighting a disease that could be eradicated if infected people ceased having sexual intercourse or engaging in needle sharing with people who are not infected. Women of childbearing age who are infected should not have sexual relationships unless they are unable to get pregnant. There are MILLIONS of children left orphaned because people failed to behave responsibly. This is a worldwide crisis that could be stopped in a generation...
  

The world community needs to work together to help people victimized by the actions of others, like the children left orphaned in Africa, like the Christians being murdered in Darfur by Islamic fundamentalists, like the billions of people enslaved in countries like China. The examples could go on and on...

As Carter concluded his speech he stated: "The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudices. God gives us the capacity for choice. We can choose to alleviate suffering. We can choose to work together for peace. We can make these changes - and we must."

Carter is right, we who want peace can choose to work together for peace.

Carter continues to be unable to recognize who actually wants peace. His seemingly blind acceptance and belief that dictators care about their people, or others, diminishes his already questionable legacy.

The Carter Center explained that he is going to the Middle East "with an open mind and heart to listen and learn from all parties." (click here for Reuters article on Carter's trip)Hamas is not an agent of peace. He shouldn't need to go on a "study mission" to discover this.

If only Carter and his supporters would listen to the United States State Department with the same open mind and heart...

Thanks to the SCSU Scholars blog for publicizing a study by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) that offers really thorough analysis of state by state statistics to determine each state's overall economic outlook in comparison to the other states. Arthur Laffer's and Stephen Moore's study, Rich States Poor States, is a fact intensive analysis of a variety of indicators critical to determining economic stability.

This study, available online, delves into the fiscal and economic policies of the states. As noted in the executive summary of the study, taxpayers and legislators should utilize this resource in evaluating their current policies and planning strategies to respond to the growing economic concerns in the U.S.

As a Minnesotan, the fact that Minnesota ranks below all five of its neighboring states is of great concern. South Dakota ranks 3rd, Michigan 16th, North Dakota 24th, Iowa 27th and Wisconsin 30th. Minnesota's overall ranking of 35 should raise red flags for those in positions of power.

We should be asking our legislators, and they should be asking themselves and each other, why our neighbors' economic policies put them on more stable ground and how we can reevaluate our policies to improve our economic position in the region and nation.

As Minnesota Democrats spend the remainder of this legislative session seeking ways to increase the burden on taxpayers, they may want to read (or at least have a staffer read) this study.

Kudos to ALEC...

As Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty continues his quest to limit Democratic spending, the media and his opponents are doing their best to muddy waters. (click here to read Star Trib article) Perhaps rather than declaring "Pawlenty Slashes $200 million from bonding bill" the headline should have been "Pawlenty Trims Pork Filled Bonding Bill."

As taxpayers try to sort out the truth behind the bills at the legislature, it seems possible that members of the conference committee to finalize the bonding bill decided to make political points by funding pork and cutting funding to programs that really would be to benefit Minnesotans.

One example making the news: The MN Zoo is not going to get all of the money it requested. (click here for article on zoo funding) Rep. Shelley Madore had requested $30 million on behalf of the zoo. This money would have allowed the zoo to make necessary repairs and to continue it's expansion.

In times of financial challenges, optional expansion needs to be limited. The Governor requested $7.5 million for the zoo. The Governor's request reflects an expectation that government spending be limited to those things that are necessary.

As a person who has a family membership to the zoo, I wondered how much money the zoo really needed. I left a message for zoo director Lee Ehmke to see if the zoo really does need $30 million and had my call returned within minutes. After a nice conversation it became clear that Ehmke recognized that, based on the economic issues we are facing, the Zoo wouldn't have received all it wanted but had relied on the amount requested by the Governor to fund needed repairs. As he noted, repaving the massive parking lots at the zoo can cost millions.

The Democrats cut the zoo's allocation to $2.5 million.

Clearly, the bonding bill presented to the Governor was political. The Legislature put forth a bill that cut some very important programs for the people of Minnesota and funded some ridiculous programs- our own MN pork spending- with the hope that the Governor would end up looking like the bad guy by using his veto power.

The Democrats chose to attempt to fund the brass band music library, light rail between Minneapolis and St. Paul, a volleyball center in Rochester, a regional sports center in Moorhead and countless other projects in DFL districts around the state. The pork projects sponsored by Democrats, and cut by the Governor, would have cost MN taxpayers over $200 million. While the Democrats stacked the bill with pork, they refused to include funding for a nursing facility for veterans.

Veterans or a music library? Veterans or Volleyball?

Democrats' complaints that the Governor's actions are political couldn't be more ironic. The entire bonding bill was a political move intended to push the Governor to a mass veto.

Unfortunately

for the Democrats, Pawlenty used the line item veto rather than a total veto to control spending.

Pawlenty has forced the Democrats to come back to the table to attempt to justify any additional spending. Perhaps as they try to convince voters and the Governor that the state really needs a light rail corridor between Minneapolis and St. Paul, they will also reconsider needed funding for the zoo. (click here for Star Trib article on light rail funding)

The Democrats don't want to talk about their pork. They want to fund their projects without any of us questioning either the legitimacy or the cost of their plans.

This is politics. If the Democrats want to play games with the increasingly limited dollars in taxpayer pockets, they should expect the Republicans to use the rules to defend the taxpayers.

This is not a monopoly game. The money is real. There is no free parking...

Kudos to the Governor, the members of the legislature and all of their staff for working overtime on behalf of Minnesota taxpayers.

The Olympic Torch was lit a couple of weeks ago and since then its global journey has been marred by protests tied to China's continuing refusal to free Tibet. The torch relay was dramatically altered in France as protesters sought to extinguish the flame. The torch was carried by bus to prevent the protesters from getting at the torch. (Click here for CNN report)

The torch is now in the United States and the protests have continued here as protesters scaled the Golden Gate Bridge. There is so much concern over the torch that security for it has been elevated to the level given to a visiting head of state. (click here for ABC report)

The Olympic Committee states in a press release dated March 23, 2008 that the main responsibility of the Olympic Committee is to "deliver the best possible Olympic Games to the athletes, who deserve it." (click here to read press release) The press release states: "We believe that China will change by opening the country to the scrutiny of the world through the 25’000 media who will attend the Games. The Olympic Games are a force for good. They are a catalyst for change, not a panacea for all ills."

If they take their responsibilities seriously, why would they have selected China to host the Olympics? Was China really able to deliver the best possible experience in an environment that forbids free thought and expression? The many conditions China places on visitors to the country seem, on their face, to be counter to the Olympic spirit. (Click here for Customs Regulations for China) Of note, nothing that is detrimental to China's politics, economy, culture and ethics can be brought in. The list of items in violation of this policy could go on and on...

Were they unaware of the human rights violations that occur every day in China? No- they acknowledge China's history but assert that they remain outside the discussions of pressuring China to allow the people of Tibet, or the people of China for that matter.

The committee indicates, in this same press release, that they believe the Olympic games will bring about mass change in China. While the Olympics are supposedly not political, and the goal of the committee is not to influence the political behavior of the Chinese government, they allude to their hope that the Olympics will, in a non-political way, influence the politics of China.

The Olympic Committee is delusional. Everything is political. Especially the Olympics. The selection of China to host the Olympics creates a perception that the Olympic Committee provided some legitimacy to China.

The Chinese government's efforts to pretend that they are interested in the Olympic message should have been laughed at, not embraced. China's record is clear to all, inside and outside of China- this is a country that oppresses its own people and uses its power to support other dictatorial governments around the world.

The people of China are denied freedom in all aspects of their lives. The world has turned its back on the Chinese people while building up the government through ridiculously shortsighted trade agreements and economic policies. Now the Olympics will deliver untold revenue to a country that enslaves its people and denies them access to information and freedom. This revenue will directly support the political infrastructure in power in China.

People as politically different as Hillary Clinton and John Bolton, have suggested the U.S. should boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics. This would send a political message but not hurt the athletes. (click here for USA Today article)

The United States should go further than boycott the opening ceremony- the United States should boycott the Olympics- period.

There are things in this world more important than the feelings or careers of athletes...

The Democrats have just unveiled their "plan" to provide Minnesota with a better public school system. (Click here for MPR article)

The plan: RAISE TAXES by $1 BILLION!!!

Other than that, there are minimal details.

Under the plan, districts would receive approximately $2500 more per pupil per year- the amount would vary district by district based on some funding calculations that reward districts who have more non-English speaking students and punish districts based on their geographical locations...

Be assured, DEMOCRAT Kathy Saltzman claims the plan isn't about money... In fact they don't seem to have any idea where they might find this $1 BILLION but no worries.

Fortunately, it is too late for the spending proposal this year. Voters should take note- there are billions of reasons to vote in the elections in November...

Apparently, a panel in Minnesota is going to unveil a plan to fix funding imbalances in the public schools. Minnesota Public Radio reported this morning that a legislative task force is going to unveil a plan to restructure funding of public schools to create more balance. (Click here for link to article) I haven't found the plan online yet but will keep looking...

This task force was necessary to address what DFL Rep Mindy Greiling of Roseville, MN thinks is an unfair system of educational funding in Minnesota. In Minnesota, we only spend the national average- $9138 per pupil- to ensure our kids are properly educated. (click here for article on TwinCities.com)

In Minnesota, schools are able to seek local tax levies to fund public schools beyond the state and federal contributions. If the schools are able to convince local taxpayers that the district has a legitimate need for funding, the local voters can decide to pass a levy. If the voters are not convinced, they will vote down the levy.

Imagine the notion that localities could decide how much funding their local district needs! Who would be so naive as to think that the people in a community would have the ability to assess whether or not their local school district was spending local tax dollars wisely? Whether the district needed more money? Whether the district was making good or poor decisions about spending?

Ironically, there is no winning for local communities- if local communities decide to increase funds to their school district they are giving their students an unfair advantage. If local communities deny increases in funding they are denying students equal access to education.

At the core of the effort to change the educational funding system is the intent to limit the taxpayers' ability determine whether or not to supplement local school districts funding. As soon as some district increases funding for the local district, the consequence is that kids in a district without increased funding are at an apparent disadvantage. Greiling thinks that is unfair...

We should all fear the goal of many like Greiling- total state control over educational funding. Giving the state the authority to limit local communities from offering their students more will result in a lowering of educational opportunity for all students in public schools across the state.

There isn't actually a fair way to fund schools equally at the state level because there is no way to determine a standard cost per pupil. There are so many variables- from local cost of living standards, to challenges faced by rural districts based on geography to cultural barriers to proportions of students coming to school not ready to learn... It is impossible to create a fair system of funding for schools that doesn't include the option for localities to increase funding based on unique local circumstances and priorities.

Representative Greiling and her collaborators should determine just how much money they think is required to educate children in Minnesota and then propose the state government fund schools at that level. The legislature can act- Pawlenty can veto their plan and then voters can respond in November.

Hillary might have said that she didn't think Obama could win the general election. While there are reports of the comment being made, she has denied it- sort of. Some seem to think making such a pronouncement demonstrates a lapse in judgement. (click here for CBS News commentary by Fernando Suarez)

Why would this statement be wrong? Why does such an analysis by one candidate about the other raise concerns?

It seems logical that when a person is running for the party nomination, that person should believe that his or her own chance to win the general election would be superior to the chances of the other candidates. If a person did not believe he or she was the most able to secure victory then that candidate should not be in the race.

Hillary Clinton seems to recognize that the American people are closely divided and the general election will be close. If this is true and she believes she is the better candidate then it would follow that she would fear that Obama would lose the national election.

Are those criticizing Clinton for her possible comments asking people to believe that Obama has not made such utterances about Clinton? Really...