So here’s the thing: I got an early review copy of Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny.” I read it. I loved it. I set out to write a sterling review.

Then that tool Hogan stole my thunder. I can do no better and can only refer you to his review.

Getting back into power is not reason enough to stand on our basic conservative principles even though it may be the result. We need more than power-seeking – we need to stand on principle to fight the Statist… to inspire new generations of Americans to look to themselves rather than the State for progress… and to band together in the most noble of earthly causes – to preserve and protect liberty against tyranny.

Put it to you this way — over vacation I read Glenn Beck’s new book. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good book. But it speaks to the measure of Mark Levin’s intellect that, compared to Glenn and many others writing calls to action, Mark was able to condense down and explain for laymen a host of meaty subjects and complicated matters.

And he did so enjoyably. His book really is a call to arms and, at a time Republicans are devoid of ideas, provides a good frame work for advancement — if only the squishes in charge would learn how to read then read his book.

So why am I writing all of this? Well, having dropped the ball on my review after Hogan beat me to it, there’s something now going on worth pointing out.

Without any buzz in the media or glowing New York Times reviews, Mark’s book has sold close to 1 million copies. And ask Barack Obama’s poll numbers keep falling, Mark’s book sales keep rising. Why? Well, Obama is devoid of ideas and Mark is full of them. That’s one reason of many.

If you haven’t gotten it, go buy it. How much did I like it? I got a free copy and I still bought a copy for my Kindle so I can refer to it on the road as I start a major writing project. It really is worth reading through more than once.

The scientific community has been thrown into a tizzy over one of Barack Obama’s latest appointments.

The group that has fallen into worship of Mother Earth through her religion of global warming are mortified that Barack Obama put an admitted Christian in charge of the National Institutes of Health.

Dan Gilgoff has the details.

One prominent critic, Paul Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who runs the anticreationist blog Pharyngula, faults Collins for suggesting that altruism cannot be explained by evolution and instead came from God. “Collins has got some big gaps in his understanding of the field of evolutionary biology,” Myers says. In comments this spring on Pharyngula, others fretted that Collins’s beliefs could influence his decisions on topics such as stem cells and sex research.

The magazine Science has a full article on the post. Remember, Science is the magazine that won’t print articles that don’t toe the scientific community’s group thought on a host of issues, including but not limited to global warming. When Science runs an article, you can be sure a good portion of the scientific community agrees.

As Dan Gilgoff notes:

What stands out in the piece is that Collins’s faith is never treated as a potentially positive attribute for his leadership at NIH, other than as a public relations gesture to show Americans that faith and science aren’t irreconcilable.

The RedState Gathering 2009 happens in Atlanta beginning this Friday.

There is still time for any of your interested friends to register by going here.  You must be registered to attend.  Registration is now $50.00.  By registering, you will be eligible for discount pricing for a room at the Grand Hyatt Atlanta.

Please note the following important information:

If you are driving, please go here for directions.

The Grand Hyatt Atlanta in Buckhead is accessible via Atlanta’s MARTA system directly from the Atlanta airport.  Travelers can board the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) train within the airport. Train fare is $1.75. Service runs from 5-1:30am on weekdays and 5:30-1:00am on weekends. Trains depart every four to five minutes weekdays and every 10-15 minutes on weekends. Grand Hyatt Atlanta guests should board the Northbound train (N to North Springs). Exit at the Buckhead Station N7 onto Peachtree Road S. The hotel is one block away. Guests also may call the hotel at 404-237-1234 to request pick up from our courtesy car at the MARTA station.

For more detailed information, including information on shuttles, taxis, etc., please go here.

For a full detailed agenda for the RedState Gathering, go here.

I’m quite positive there have been Presidents and Vice Presidents to use Jesus Christ’s name as a swear word.

I’m also quite sure Joe Biden is the first one to use the Lord’s name as a swear word in an interview.

Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue if the Vice President of the United States used the name of Islam’s supreme being as a curse word? They rioted all over the Muslim world when a Danish newspaper cartoonist penned a series of satiric pieces on Mohammed, so making “Allah” a curse word would likely incite far more serious violence. And does anybody doubt that the editorial pages of The New York Times and other liberal newspapers would instantly demand an apology before further damage is done to A America’s supposed standing in the world.

So where is the uproar over Vice President Joe Biden’s incredible use of “Jesus Christ” as a curse word?

The Politico is breaking some more bad news for Barry O and his socialist storm troopers. According to a CBO analysis, the $1 trillion healthcare plan’s independent panel designed to keep Medicare spending in check would, at best, save only $2 billion of the $1 trillion plan.

the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill’s $1 trillion price tag.

“In CBO’s judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized … but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.

The Blue Dogs might want to hang their hat on CBO’s more speculative cost savings projections, but those will whither away as the bill expands through Congress.

In other words, this bill will devastate the economy and drive up the deficit even further.

Moe wrote about it here. I want to say more about it.

According to the Austin Stateman, a brick was thrown through the window of a 4 year old’s bedroom. The brick had a note attached to it that said “Keep Eastside Black. Keep Eastside Strong.”

The white homeowner has lived in the neighborhood for ten years.

Here is the money paragraph from the article:

Police have not classified this incident as a hate crime, said Austin Police Sgt. Richard Stresing, because hate crimes target an individual specifically because of an identifying characteristic, like race. Police say the incident has been classified as criminal mischief and deadly conduct.

Let’s reverse the story. A brick is thrown through the window of a 4 year old’s bedroom. The brick has a note attached that says “Keep Eastside White. Keep Eastside Strong.” The homeowner is black and has lived in the neighborhood for ten years.

Read More →

Can someone fly in some Honduran soldiers to load Lamar Alexander (R-TN) up on a plane and fly in to Costa Rica? Get him out of the country. Come on — if this is the future leadership of the Republican Party, we need a coup*.

Jim DeMint has scored some damn effective points against Barack Obama this week by calling healthcare Obama’s “Waterloo.” It got under his skin so bad, Obama flubbed his press conference and saw his poll numbers dip below 50% for the first time.

Independent types should read that as “Jim DeMint is on to something.” Lamar Alexander reads it as “time to get on my knees and kiss the Democrats’ backsides.”

Behold this exchange on the floor of the Senate.

Read More →

The Republicans are engaging on this front. Good for them.

Congressmen Boehner and McCotter released the following statement:

Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration’ and other end of life treatments, and may place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign. This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law. At a minimum this legislative language deserves a full and open public debate – the sort of debate that is impossible to have under the politically-driven deadlines Democratic leaders have arbitrarily set for enactment of a health care bill.

“This provision of the legislation is a throwback to 1977, when the old Department of Health Education and Welfare proposed federal promotion of living wills for cost-savings purposes described as ‘enormous.’ At that time, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago decried this effort by saying: ‘The message is clear: government can save money by encouraging old people to die a little sooner than they otherwise would. Instead of being regarded with reverence, and cherished, human life is subject in this view to a utilitarian cost-benefit calculus and can be sacrificed to serve fiscal policy and the sacred imperative of trimming a budget.’

“With three states having legalized physician-assisted suicide, this provision could create a slippery slope for a more permissive environment for euthanasia, mercy-killing and physician-assisted suicide because it does not clearly exclude counseling about the supposed benefits of killing oneself.

“Health care reform that fails to protect the sanctity and dignity of all human life is not reform at all.”

That’s exactly right. The Democrats can say all they want that they just want to improve comfort and save costs at the end of life, but their actual rhetoric suggests something more. Look to the example I posted earlier about Oregon.

A man who could not afford chemotherapy was told by the government that they’d help him commit suicide instead of helping him live.

It’s not hyperbole. It is already reality.

We’ve noted remarks by a senior aide to Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) that “probably the best part of the bill is the increase in Hospice care which will solve the prolonging of life issue.”

That does not tend to make sense because hospice care is for people already at the end of life who need to be kept comfortable. How on earth does more hospice funding solve “prolonging of life issues” when people in hospice already know they are about to die?

Well, it doesn’t until you consider stories like this.

Some terminally ill patients in Oregon who turned to their state for health care were denied treatment and offered doctor-assisted suicide instead, a proposal some experts have called a “chilling” corruption of medical ethics.

Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon’s state-run health plan for help.

Lane Individual Practice Association (LIPA), which administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County, responded to Stroup’s request with a letter saying the state would not cover Stroup’s pricey treatment, but would pay for the cost of physician-assisted suicide.

This is just funny, funny, funny to watch.

Do you really think Senators are going to be in a mood to socialize the American healthcare system after experiencing stuff like this from rural Louisiana:

Friends, read that headline again. It is worth pointing out that Senator Mitch McConnell has been most excellent on the issue of Sotomayor. And I, given my frequent criticisms of him, want to this out there.

This morning, the NRA is announcing that it is going to score the Sotomayor nomination. This is a great thing. And I have no doubt that while outside groups have applied much pressure, Mitch McConnell leading so effectively on this front was a deciding factor. No group wants to come out and be left hanging by a failure of leadership.

McConnell has mitchslapped the Democrats through this entire process and while I may have qualms about him on several fronts, there is no doubt this morning that he has been extremely effective on this front.

Well done.

So I’m a conservative activist, not a journalist. The left would have you think otherwise after an enterprising journalist discovered I’d sent Mark Sanford’s communications director saying I was happy to help deal with the “missing governor” story — even suggesting Sanford post at RedState himself.

This, of course, was before anyone knew “hiking the Appalachian Trail” was code for “hitting Argentine tail.”

Nonetheless, the left has been all over me for that email as if I’m some sort of objective reporter gone wrong. I make no secret that I am a conservative activist and, until the real story came out, it seemed the media was making a mountain out of a molehill.

Today, though, the left in its hypocrisy, is damn dead quiet over this:

MSNBC’s Ed “The Ed Show” Schultz, who told viewers he has a seat in the front row of tonight’s presser, gave President Obama a pep talk on health care last night in front of a huge “GIVE ’EM HELL” graphic. 

An MSNBC show host gets a front row seat with the press at the Obama press conference tonight AND gave Obama “a pep talk on healthcare last night” and the left and media are silent on this?

After days of trying to flog me for my email to Sanford, the left and press corp seem to have no problem with a guy posing as an actual member of the press and also giving Obama a pep talk.

As long as the media roll over like well fed kittens, Obama will keep rolling them.

We have the power to stop Barack Obama on healthcare. We have the power to shut him down.

Already, Democrats are recognizing the measure is coming apart at the seams. Nancy says she has the votes, but the markup of the bill in committee keeps getting cancelled.

Tonight, Barack Obama goes on television to complain, beg, and cajole the American people to commit themselves to a system that will decrease our life expectancy, decrease the quality of our healthcare, and increase our deficit to even higher levels than Obama has already caused.

As a distraction, Obama is slugging Jim DeMint for calling the healthcare debate Obama’s “Waterloo.” The problem is, Democrats are admitting to Republicans that Obama does recognize it is his Waterloo moment.

Grassley said he spoke with a Democratic House member last week who shared Obama’s bleak reaction during a private meeting to reports that some factions of House Democrats were lining up to stall or even take down the overhaul unless leaders made major changes.

“Let’s just lay everything on the table,” Grassley said. “A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn’t going to pass if there weren’t some changes made … and the president says, ‘You’re going to destroy my presidency.’ “

The question now, for people like Charles Grassley, is why even bother? Let’s crush the Democrats on this issue.

There are two candidates in NY-23 worth focusing on (there are actually several Republicans vying for a party nomination to run against one Democrat).

One candidate is pro-life, supports traditional marriage, and is pretty fiscally responsible.

The other is pro-abortion, supports gay marriage, and is pretty fiscally reckless.

You’d think the first candidate is the Republican and the second is the Democrat. You would be wrong.

In New York’s 23rd congressional district, Republicans are leaning toward endorsing New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava as their candidate for the special election there. The election is being held to replace Republican Congressman John McHugh, who Obama appointed Army Secretary.

Scozzafava is both a socially and fiscally liberal loser. She cannot beat the Democrat who is both a social and (mostly) fiscal conservative and is a powerful chairman in the State Senate.

Scozzafava has burned every bridge possible with every conservative interest group.

If Scozzafava is the nominee, the New York Conservative Party will not support her — and they deliver vital support and money most often to Republican candidates.

If Scozzafava is the GOP candidate, I will support and encourage all of you to support the Democrat, who will vote will us more often than Scozzafava ever would.

Most crucially, if the GOP does choose Scozzafava to be their candidate in NY-23, the Democrats will go into the election on a timetable of their choosing with a candidate who will win, thus propelling a media narrative during the healthcare debate that Obama remains popular.

In fact, the media narrative from a Democrat win in this district at this time will be devastating for the GOP as it seeks to hold back Obama on healthcare.

This is what Republican suicide looks like.

[updated]: I hear that the RNC will not spend one red cent in NY-23 if Scozzafava is the nominee. Good! Note this is praise for Michael Steele and him team. Well done. I hope the NRCC does the same.

It took me blogging at RedState pointing out that the NRA was missing in action on Sotomayor for the NRA to do anything about her nomination.

And when the NRA engaged, it did so by sending out a letter publicly telling Sotomayor what she needed to say so the NRA would not score her vote.

Apparently, it worked.

The NRA knows it cannot support Sotomayor’s confirmation. After all, Sotomayor actually said she did not know if there was such a thing as a “right to self defense” in the United States Constitution — don’t worry, she knows for sure there is an abortion right there.

Sotomayor believes that states can ban ownership of nunchucks by individuals who don’t want to own a handgun for self-defense.

In fact, Sotomayor is to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the issue of self-defense.

But while the NRA knows it cannot support Sotomayor and must oppose her, the NRA also knows that Senators will not pay attention unless the NRA “scores” the vote, i.e. negatively impacts a Senator’s gun rating if the Senator votes for Sotomayor.

The NRA, if you will recall, fell all over itself to avoid saying anything negative about Eric Holder, the most anti-gun Attorney General to ever reside at the DOJ. The NRA did not want to put Democrat Senators in awkward positions against their newly elected President.

In the same way, the NRA does not want to put Senators in awkward positions when it comes to Sonia Sotomayor. The NRA values its bipartisan reputation more than it values the second amendment.

For the first time in the NRA’s history, the NRA will oppose a nomination to the United States Supreme Court without scoring the vote.* In other words, Senators can vote for Sotomayor — the most anti-gun and anti-self defense nominee ever — and face no repercussions from the NRA.

David Keene of ACU, who has been in some hot water lately, is on the board of the NRA. If he wanted to really make amends quickly with conservatives troubled by the FedEx flap, he should push the issue with the NRA.

Let’s not hold our breath, however. We must keep our perspective. The National Rifle Association actively opposed legislation that would allow individuals to carry rifles into national parks. Perhaps it is time to become life members of Gun Owners of America instead of the NRA.

Charleston Heston rolls over in his grave today.

*I regret the error. I’ve found I cannot defend the claim and must retract it. My apologies. Notwithstanding that, the overall point remains — the NRA has capitulated on Sotomayor and has totally refused to put up a fight, just like with Eric Holder. If the NRA is not going to aggressively combat anti-2nd Amendment judges, why should we give them money?

The Commerce Department is running away from Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke’s statement this past weekend in China. While there, the Wall Street Journal reports, Locke said the United States should pay for China’s carbon emissions.

In his own words, Locke said:

“It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that.”

In other words, China would have to do no carbon emission offsets. American consumers instead would cover the costs because China is making products for us.

That was Locke in his own words. We don’t always articulate what we mean. None of us do. Sometimes we say things we don’t mean. The problem for Locke is that the idea is gaining steam among prominent global warming priests that the administration pays attention to.

Not willing to let Locke’s comment become a distraction, his office later put a smoke screen around his comments, telling the Wall Street Journal

“Secretary Locke has been very clear on emphasizing the importance of fair trade as a part of the United States’ relationship with China. He believes U.S. companies should not be disadvantaged by Chinese imports not bound by responsible policies to reduce carbon emissions. China and the US must work together to ensure a level playing field and reduce our carbon footprints. The Secretary’s trip to China demonstrated his commitment to fair trade and his belief that both the United States and China can benefit from shared investments and cooperation in clean energy that will lead to commercial and environmental benefits for both countries.”

Of course, they did not actually deny that Gary Locke said what he said and meant what he meant.

David Keene, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union (“ACU”) called me tonight to discuss my post from Friday that was written after the Politico story by Mike Allen went up.

The Politico received several letters. FedEx had been sent a letter by ACU offering to help FedEx on an issue in exchange for $2 million. FedEx did not respond. Dave Keene, Grover Norquist, and others then lent their names to a letter chastising FedEx for daring to call what UPS wants from the government a bailout.

I wrote at the time

David Keene and Grover Norquist are, whether they like it or not, intrinsically linked to their respective organizations. If they come out in support of a particular position, people believe that their organizations support that position too.

According to Mr. Keene, the correspondence with FedEx was written June 30th and he agreed to lend his name to the other letter on July 1st. The letter was dated July 15th. He says he is sure that he had signed off on the second letter before FedEx even had time to make a decision on ACU’s letter.

His point, above all else, was that he had no knowledge of the ACU letter. People, myself included, forget that Dave Keene, unlike many other leaders of conservative interest groups, is not a full time Chairman. He is not in charge of the day to day operations of ACU and did not participate in the negotiations with FedEx.

What Keene does say, however, is that the conversation with FedEx was ongoing. ACU told FedEx that it supported its position. FedEx asked ACU what it could do to mobilize grassroots opposition. ACU told FedEx it could help, but did not have the budget for an aggressive campaign. FedEx asked ACU for a ballpark figure. ACU asked FedEx what it was looking for. FedEx said to make it a kitchen sink proposal and throw in everything.

The June 30, 2009, letter was a product of those ongoing conversations.

Also, Keene says this line in the FedEx letter:

Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and / or other members of the ACU’s Board of Directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)

was very much out of line and the person responsible for it did get in trouble. Keene does not want anyone to think his opinion is for sale.

If we are willing to say this whole exchange is not as bad as it looks, we must also say that something fundamentally must change at ACU. To have a Chairman of the organization not engaged in these things can get them into these situations.

To have a Chairman with an outside job dependent on other income, can cause problems. To have an organization that suggests to people that their Chairman will use his weekly column to support their issue for money is not a good thing. We have to really wonder about what would lead a person to put such a statement in a letter like — at the very least knowing it could become public.

More fundamentally, to have a Chairman who makes his living elsewhere, who knows that lending his name to a letter signed by other conservatives will imply ACU’s support too, and to have ACU take the opposition approach without involving the Chairman in the detailed discusses that clearly, based on the letter, involve the Chairman lending his name to support the cause ACU is supporting smells very, very bad and suggests something is rotten and in need of replacing.

ACU needs a full time Chairman and needs to thoroughly investigate how this incident happened.

Mr. Keene released a statement this evening. I have put it, in its entirety, below the fold.

Read More →

H.R. 3200 is the Democrat healthcare bill.

Let’s back up for a minute. I noted some time ago Jay Rockefeller went on record to say that at some point the government has to decide whether or not you are allowed to receive any more medical benefits if the cost outweighs the potential benefits.

As Mickey Kaus has noted, both Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias are on record agreeing. Kaus writes:

Democratic blogger Ezra Klein appears to be positioning Dem health care reforms as a way to cut costs, on the grounds that a reformed system will be able to make “hard choices” and “rational” coverage decisions, by which Klein seems to mean “not providing” treatments that are unproven or too expensive–when “a person’s life, or health, is not worth the price.” Matthew Yglesias’ recent post seems to be saying the same thing, though clarity isn’t its strong suit.

Weirdo cum intellectual Peter Singer, a man who favors post-birth abortions of disabled children, took to the New York Times to write

You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?

If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn’t going to be good. But suppose it’s not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man – and everyone else like him – with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone’s life? If there is any point at which you say, “No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed.

In his article, he argues that, in effect, we should euthanize the elderly.

I think, given that the member of Congress who drafted H.R. 3200 read and take seriously people like Klien, Yglesias, and Singer, we should be very troubled by Section 1233 of H.R. 3200. The section, titled “Advanced Care Planning Consultation” requires senior citizens to meet at least every 5 years with a doctor or nurse practitioner to discuss dying with dignity.

The section requires that they talk to their doctor, not a lawyer, about living wills, durable healthcare powers of attorney, hospice, etc. Given the progressive intelligentsia already being on the record in favor of euthanizing the elderly, it is no small leap to see where the Democrats are headed with this.

Legally forcing senior citizens to have “death with dignity schedules every few years is just another way to say the government wants to make sure seniors know it is time to commit suicide to save the system money.

And saving any medical system through encouraged deaths of the elderly or unborn is not a medical system worth having. The Hippocratic Oath requires doctors to “do no harm.” That’s meant toward the patient, not the costs to the government.

The other day, Barack Obama said his healthcare plan would not increase the deficit.

Every proposal now being considered does increase the deficit.

It’s time to get our members of Congress on the record. There are four key questions we need to ask this week. We’ll take the data, compile it, and next week have a more accurate list of targets to build our opposition to healthcare.

Go here now. Call your member of Congress and two Senators. Ask them these questions:

1. Barack Obama said Friday that his healthcare plan will not increase the deficit. If the plan does increase the deficit, will you oppose it?
2. Will you oppose a plan that includes a public option?
3. Will you oppose a plan that includes a trigger for a public option?
4. Will you oppose provisions paying for taxpayer funded abortions?

Use the form and email me back the answers. I’ll get the answers compiled and we’ll have a better list of targets to go after next week based on how they stand on these issues.

We can defeat Obamacare. But we need to do some work.

Call now.