Finally a Democrat on the Right Side of Taxes

The Widow’s mite of Biblical fame.

Tim Kaine — known here as Gov. Flowmax after closing Virginia’s interstate rest stops — occasionally comes down on the right side of an issue. During the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce debate between Senate candidates Kaine and former Sen. George Allen, Kaine observed that he would be “open” to the idea of everyone paying some level of federal income tax.

Subsequent media and online coverage was dominated by the charge that Kaine wants to tax everyone. Republican websites instantly pounced on the tax statement in an effort to put Kaine on the defensive. This is typical of today’s politics where candidates and consultants go for short–term political advantage at the cost of long term damage to the country.

Readers of last week’s column know I think it’s a good idea for every adult to pay federal tax. Otherwise some enjoy Taxation Without Participation where those who don’t pay federal taxes are happy to vote for politicians who will increase the taxes of those who do.

There is no government free lunch, although it may seem like it as long as the Chinese allow Uncle Sam to run a tab. If everyone pays, then everyone is aware of the cost of government when taxes increase. Normally Democrats oppose this.

The whole idea of some individuals being exempt from responsibility is another of the modern “progressive” ideas that have done so much to damage the nation. “Forward” into oblivion one might say.

Contrast “progressive” tax policy with Biblical tithe policy. God — who one would think knows something about the human heart and fairness — did not exempt anyone from paying their obligation. Luke 21:1 – 4 relates the incident of the widow’s mite: And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”

The widow’s poverty did not exempt her, in fact it served to glorify her. Yet modern man, who evidently has a more finely attuned sense of justice than God, doesn’t think everyone should contribute to the nation’s upkeep. What’s more, the widow paid the same percentage tithe as those in “their abundance.” Proving God doesn’t believe in “progressive” tax rates either, but that’s a topic for another column.

Kaine was also asked if he supports eliminating charitable and mortgage interest deductions. Kaine answered that he supports broadening the base and rather than enduring a political battle over each deduction, he supports setting an aggregate total.

What this innocuous phrase means is Kaine wants the federal government to decide what’s a reasonable amount for you to give to charity. I’m sure if Kaine has his way the federally–approved donation deduction will be somewhere between the widow’s mite that Joe Biden delivers by motorcade each December 25^th and the 30 percent Mitt Romney has donated to charity in 2011.

If instituted, the fed’s final decision on what’s allowed will be closer to the 3 to 5 percent charitable average for the US. For Christians who give a 10 percent tithe, this means they will be paying taxes on at least half of the money they donate. Proving Leviathan tolerates the worship of God as long as you save some Mammon for it.

This is a curious policy for a Catholic like Kaine to support, but it’s not the only issue where the former governor has a secular take on his faith. When the subject came up Kaine didn’t come right out and say he supported “abortion.” After all, this wasn’t the Democrat National Convention where abortion is part of the party platform.

Kaine’s genuflection came when he declared support for a woman’s right to exercise “constitutional choices.” But certainly not the “constitutional choice” that allows a woman to carry a concealed weapon. Kaine’s bloodless euphemism is just his feeble attempt to conceal the ugly truth of abortion.

Kaine will tell you that as a Catholic he is personally opposed to abortion, but is not willing to impose his beliefs on others. This is a classic dodge that weaselly Southern Democrats have been using for over 200 years.

Before the Civil War Democrats claimed to be personally opposed to slavery, but unwilling to impose their beliefs on the planter aristocracy.

The outcome in the one case was involuntary servitude, in the other involuntary death. I fail to see any improvement in Democrat philosophy over the years.

It’s a real shame that Tim Kaine is not willing to extend his “open” to everyone paying taxes to being “open” to everyone being born.

 

MSM Twits Distort a Tweet

Replacement ref throws up hands in disbelief. NFL rules a touchdown.

When reading MSM stories concerning the hypocrisy of Republicans or conservatives it is often difficult to decide whether the reporters are actively dishonest or just stupid.

An AP story by Scott Bauer and a Washington Post effort by Brad Plumer are prime examples. Both concern a tweet sent by Republican Gov. Scott Walker (R–WI) after the Green Bay Packers were robbed of their victory by a high school level replacement referee who was unable to distinguish between an interception and a touchdown.

Tuesday morning Walker tweeted, “After catching a few hours of sleep, the #Packers game is still just as painful. #Returntherealrefs.” If you are a liberal journalist working for the Associated Press or the WaPost (I know that’s redundant) this is obviously an example of conservative hypocrisy.

The Post headline was: “Wisconsin governor fumbles on Twitter: Walker sees collective bargaining in a new light after the Packers’ loss.” The headline over the AP story was: “Union–busting Wis. governor calls for return of NFL’s union refs after call seals Packers loss.”

Both headlines reek of hypocrisy on Walker’s part and the Post even claimed a change of heart that existed only in the reporter’s fevered mind. But not all unions are alike, just as not all reporters are equally biased.

Both writers overlook the obvious fact that Walker’s fight in Wisconsin was against public employee unions and his tweet was about private sector unions. There is no hypocrisy involved in supporting one form of union and opposing the other.

Public employee unions are a conspiracy against the taxpayer. Union officials bargain with elected officials. The elected official wants union support in his next election. The union official simply wants more. They come to an agreement. The taxpayer, who picks up the tab, is not represented at the table. There are no market constraints on public employee unions. As long as taxes can be raised to cover salary, insurance and pension costs, the benefits keep rolling along.

This is not how it works in the private sector. Plumer attempts to graft the American Airlines’ labor dispute onto the Wisconsin controversy when he writes, “the referee feud is fairly representative of modern labor battles playing out in Wisconsin and elsewhere.”

This is simply false. Wisconsin labor disputes involved public employee unions and although flying American Airlines in many ways resembles a visit to the DMV, it is still a private sector entity with a private sector union.

Walker, as opposed to the two reporters, knows there’s a difference.

Another distinction is American Airlines declared bankruptcy because it could not survive in the private sector with the cost structure imposed on it by declining revenue and union contracts. Taxpayers and public employee unions are not involved.

The NFL referee’s union is obviously a private sector dispute being played out in public. And as a customer of the NFL and a supporter of the Packers, Walker is both intellectually consistent and within his rights to demand the NFL solve the problem by retuning the “real refs.”

Evidently this obvious distinction escaped the two “journalists” who thought they had a gotcha story.

On the other hand, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is the one with the political problem. He has manifestly failed and lost this strike. He has committed the cardinal firing offense for a business leader: being unprepared for a crisis he knew was coming, while debasing his product.

Goodell better hope he can keep 17 votes in his favor among the 32 NFL team owners. Otherwise he might be biggest casualty of this strike.

Taxation Without Participation

It’s easy to vote for higher taxes when you’re not paying.

Michael Kinsley described a “gaffe” as anytime a politician is caught telling the truth. This is particularly accurate for Republicans and conservatives as is demonstrated by the reaction to Mitt Romney’s comment regarding Obama’s base.

The setting was unfortunate — a $50,000–a–plate fundraiser — but the message was accurate. As he discussed campaign strategy — not governing philosophy — Romney explained: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… And the government should give it to them…

“Our message of low taxes doesn’t connect…so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful…”

Romney neglected to mention another solid portion of the Obama base: the welfare–industrial complex composed of government workers and associated special interest groups. The simple fact is the more people receiving government handouts, the more government employees you need to distribute the geetus.

The size of the two populations increases in lockstep as does the size of the Obama base. There is no exit strategy for the War on Poverty.

And this is nothing new, as Ann Coulter pointed out, “Democrats’ problem with welfare reform always was that if it worked, we would need fewer of these well-pensioned public employees, a fact repeatedly acknowledged by liberals themselves.”

Democrat “compassion” for the poor and underprivileged always comes with a healthy dose of self–interest. Just like any attack on Republicans while defending welfare programs is done with elections in mind. They know a reduction in dependency threatens to result in a reduction in Democrats.

Why do you think the Obama administration imitates Tupperware and throws food stamp parties to urge people to apply for handouts? Why did the number of able–bodied participants in the food stamp program double after Obama suspended the work requirement? Why do a record 8.8 million Americans collect disability checks? Why do federal unemployment checks continue for almost two years? And why is the Obama administration spending a record 15.4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product on direct cash payments to individuals?

The answer is simple: Obama’s building his base. That’s why Democrats at their national convention had no problem with an Orwellian video that proclaimed, “Government is the only thing that we all belong to.”

Realizing this 47 percent voting block constitutes a problem isn’t a targeting decision made inside the Romney campaign. It’s an issue with the potential to rend the social fabric of the nation. It is a serious enough problem to offer Democrats a trade.

Conservatives agree to abandon photo ID requirements for voting if in return Democrats agree any citizen who is dependent on the federal government for his livelihood is not eligible to vote. This important reform would not mean a permanent loss of voting privileges and the creation of lifelong second–class citizens. On the contrary, as soon as the dependent citizen re–establishes financial independence the individual regains his vote. Regaining his vote acts as an incentive for personal responsibility.

When 47 percent of the populace is dependent on government benefits the nation is fast approaching a tipping point. Once the number passes 50 percent, American society will no longer have a crucial element of shared sacrifice. Instead the dependency block gets to vote for their share of increased benefits and taxpayers make the sacrifice. Even Democrats should be able to recognize that situation is unfair and inequitable.

For example, are McDonald’s customers allowed to set the price of a Big Mac? Do employees of Government Motors vote to set their own salaries? Do football teams get to vote on how many points the opposing defense will surrender?

There already exists a precedent for temporarily relinquishing the vote. Judges, Congressmen and even members of the city council are not supposed to vote or rule on matters in which they have a financial interest.

Naturally government employees would retain voting privileges. As would Social Security recipients, simply because seniors have been told since the program’s inception the money is not welfare. It’s not true now and it was a lie in 1935, but I’m not prepared to penalize seniors because the government misled them.

This reform would leave us with an electorate that bears the responsibility of paying for the government it advocates. Without this reform the Obamatrons continue to benefit unfairly from Taxation Without Participation.

In November one might cynically term Obama’s 47 percent “pocketbook voters,” only the pocketbook they’ll be voting is yours.

President Obama: Jihad Your Chance to Win the Election

Moslems commemorate 9/11 in their special way.

The term for Christians and other non–Moslems living in Islamic countries is “dhimmi.” Think of it as Jim Crow with a turban. Think of it as Jim Crow right now.

According to Mitchell Bard, dhimmis in Islamic lands “on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Moslems or to touch a Moslem woman.”

Dhimmis were forbidden to hold public office, serve in the armed forces or own weapons. Non–Moslems cannot build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, construct houses taller than those of Moslems or drink wine in public, which helps to explain Donald Trump’s absence.

A dhimmi’s testimony in court was worthless, which meant attacking dhimmis was penalty–free for Moslems, just like today.

But one doesn’t have to live in the Middle East to be a dhimmi. You could be the President of the United States and impose dhimmitude on an entire nation.

Obama orders our soldiers to wear white gloves when touching the Koran (no word on whether the troops are required to suit up before touching the Bible or Bagvad Gita) and avoid drinking or eating in front of Moslems during their Ramadan fast.

His administration can insist there is no nexus between Islam and terrorism; and collaborate with Muslim Brotherhood front groups here at home.

And the President can treat the murder of our Libyan ambassador and an attack on our embassy in Egypt as simply a random act in response to provocation from US citizens.

In full dhimmi mode the embassy in Cairo and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton scrambled to burn the Constitution in a futile effort to placate readers of the Koran. “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims…” the statement read. “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

The death of the ambassador presented a problem for the State Department since he was important, and not a grunt in Afghanistan. They couldn’t blame his death on asking to see photos of a Moslem’s wife and kids, like the military does in “green on blue” attacks in Kabul.

So Hillary “strongly condemned the attack” and asked the same Libyans who allowed the murder to provide additional protection for the rubble.

An attack on an embassy or the murder of an ambassador is not a law enforcement problem. It’s an act of war. The proper response is not a hand–wringing statement and a eulogy for Ambassador Chris Stevens.

That would be like FDR — Obama’s hero — issuing a statement after Pearl Harbor that saluted the dead, praised them for their public service and failed to mention the attack by Japan.

The proper response to an act of war is a demand the perpetrators be handed over immediately.

And until then, the US 6^th fleet should blockade Libyan ports and institute a no–fly zone over every airport. In the case of Egypt, the administration should end discussions on forgiving its $1 billion debt and Egypt should not get a penny of the $1.5 billion in aid until rioters who violated US sovereignty are turned over.

(On second thought, keep the rioters. Since they crossed an international border while invading our embassy, this administration might feel relieved to finally encounter illegals that don’t speak Spanish. There’s a real possibility Janet Incompetano would offer rioters a green card and a free college education.)

Unfortunately, none of this will happen. This weak, feckless, incompetent excuse for a President puts a higher priority on making sure the Pentagon allows homosexuals in military uniform to march in “gay pride” parades than he does in protecting Americans and embassies overseas on the anniversary of 9/11.

Instead the Cairo embassy apologetically announced there would be no visa services on Wednesday due to clean up from a previously unplanned al Qaeda festival.

Any psychologist will tell you successful behavior is learned behavior and since 1979 Moslems have learned attacking a US embassy is penalty–free and gives the attackers plenty of cachet with the hijab hotties.

One of the Islamists at the embassy storming explained, “This is a very simple reaction to harming our prophet.” So why can’t the United States have a very simple reaction to harming our embassy and our citizens?

A good friend of mine observed that if Obama had ordered Marines in Cairo to fire when the rioters crossed the wall, he would have won the election yesterday. Fortunately for Mitt Romney, that dhimmi knows his place.

Social Security: Issuing Checks & Hollow–Points

Hollow–point bullets: a good reason to be polite when you visit the Social Security office.

Some of the more excitable members of the conservative Internet commentariat sounded battle stations when they learned the Social Security Administration (SSA) wanted to buy 174,000 hollow–point bullets.

Had granny decided she was not going passively the next time Paul Ryan tried to shove her off a cliff? Were irate seniors busy sharpening the legs on their walkers in preparation for the coming conflict over paying for Social Security?

The Infowars.com website speculated, “It’s not outlandish to suggest that the Social Security Administration is purchasing the bullets as part of preparations for civil unrest.” And the Daily Caller added the rounds have to be intended for domestic use, “since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens.”

Which only makes sense when one considers how few foreigners are Social Security recipients, to say nothing of the lack of overseas Social Security offices.

Seeking to allay our fears, the SSA explained the ammunition was for the use of agents in the office of the inspector general that investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes.

That answered the “whom” but failed to address the “why.” The previously alarmed still wanted to know why the SSA was ordering hollow–points, which are bullets designed to expand upon contact with the human body, consequently doing more damage to the target.

The answer was for safety reasons — the bystander’s, not the target’s. As a hollow–point expands it loses velocity, so those rounds tend to remain inside the target. Military, or full–metal jacket rounds, don’t expand as much and consequently a military round is liable to pass through the target’s body and bury itself in a bystander.

For conservatives this firepower controversy is only a distraction. The real issue at hand is why does the SSA have a police force in the first place?

Bureaucrats have an answer already prepared. These agents “need to be armed and trained appropriately. They not only investigate allegations of Social Security fraud, but they also are called to respond to threats against Social Security offices, employees, and customers,” explained an official web post.

But lets look at the numbers. There are 295 agents working in 66 different offices that made a grand total of 589 arrests last year according to the WaPost.

It works out to less than two arrests per year, per agent. That’s hardly a punishing level of enforcement and it compares poorly with the nationwide average of 21 arrests per year for police officers. And it certainly does not justify the cost of duplicating existing federal law enforcement capability.

A better question is why does the SSA have it’s own police force when the U.S. Marshals Service is fully capable of making the SSA’s paltry 589 arrests?

This is why the US has a trillion dollar debt, a bloated, mismanaged government and conservatives who despair of ever reducing its size.  Empire–building bureaucrats duplicate services and programs and a compliant Congress sends us the bill.

Besides it’s just possible that if the Marshals Service had a few more warrants to serve they would occupy themselves with productive endeavors and not have time to cost victims money in the real estate market, as events in Manassas, VA demonstrate. There the service has just presided over the second auction of the old Post Office building that was seized as part of the assets in a fraud case.

Proceeds from the sale of the building are to go to victims who lost money. The first auction was held in April and attracted a bid of $385,000 that was accepted by the auctioneer. Anyone who has ever placed a bid for stolen electronics on eBay knows that means the bidder now owns the Post Office! Except the normal rules of the marketplace don’t apply to the government, which neither understands nor encourages a truly free market.

The feds make their own rules.

So the Marshals Service rejected the winning bid, because explained the spokesperson, “We felt it was too low.” Any real estate agent worth his photo featuring calling cards will tell you a property is worth what someone will pay for it, not what some bureaucrat thinks looks better in the news release announcing the distribution of the money.

The bidders, bless their hearts, increased their offer to $400,000, a sum that was also rejected. And there the situation stood until last month when another auction was held and guess what? This time the winning bid was $355,000.

Assuming this bid is accepted, the Marshals Service’s marketplace ignorance will have only cost the intended recipients of the proceeds $45,000. Unless the Marshals Service intends to hold out for an even lower bid.

But this mistake is consequence–free for the Marshals, just as building an unnecessary police force only enhances the organization chart at the SSA. In the first instance it only costs taxpayers and in the second only tax dollars. And what bureaucrat cares about either?

Why My Wife Is Going to Heaven, Where I Hope She Lobbies for Me: A Short Devotional

Janet. Not on the tandem.

Friday I was an unwitting participant in an object lesson that revealed how my wife, Janet, works to advance the Kingdom of God and I work to advance the kingdom of me.

That afternoon we were riding our tandem on the out–bound leg of our regular bicycle route when we passed two female cyclists slowly making their way up a short rise.

One was riding slowly, obviously waiting for her companion who was dismounted and walking her bike up the hill. Being the wiseacre I am, I often chide people who walk their bicycle up hills by calling out, “You’ll never grow up to be big and strong walking your bike uphill.” But fortunately this time I didn’t.

We reached the turnaround and started back toward home. Shortly we came on the two women again and this time both were walking their bikes. It dawned on me the reason they are walking could be because of a mechanical problem and not fatigue. So we slowed down and I asked the first woman if they had a problem with their bike.

She replied that her friend did have a problem. Janet and I rode up to the second woman and stopped. I asked what the problem was and she explained that her rear tire had a flat and she did not have a spare.

That’s an easy problem to fix, particularly since I always travel with two spare tubes. I told her she could have one of our spares and asked Janet to retrieve it from the pouch under her bike seat. While this was going on, the woman said that she was reluctant to take our tube since she had no way to repay us.

This is the point where I failed as a Christian yet again. (I could tell you the story of Wegman’s, followed a couple of years later by ACE Hardware, but I promised to keep this short.) Feeling really good about myself and my generosity, I told her that all she had to do was say “thanks” and that was payment enough.

Meanwhile, Janet came up with the spare and handed it to the woman who assured us she could change the tube and had a pump to air up the tire. Before we started off the woman again thanked us and Janet said, “You can’t call yourself a disciple if you don’t disciple others.”

And just like that I knew I’d failed again.

Contrast the two responses to the woman’s gratitude. Mine was a pompous, self–satisfied response that focused the action on me: Generous bestower of a bicycle tube. When that should not have been the case at all. Christians act like Christians because if we are saved and if we are filled with the Holy Sprit we are impelled to “Do unto others…” We are not charitable to others because we are basically “nice people.” We do it because that is our mission and I failed utterly to communicate that. As far as that woman was concerned Janet and I were a random act of kindness, traveling on a tandem, origin unknown.

Don’t get me wrong, when one is acting as a Christian you don’t have to make a big production out of it every time you do a good deed. There is no need to have an impromptu prayer meeting or ask them to wait until you can go to the car and retrieve the snake for a brief ceremony.

All that is required for Kingdom building is to let them know they were helped in a small way by an anonymous Christian trying to do God’s work and the thanks belongs to Him.

You can phrase it how you wish. I’m leaning toward what the centurion said in Matthew 8:9, “I am a man under authority…” and adding I am commanded to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. Possibly ending by thanking them for giving me the opportunity to be of service. I may drop this since I don’t want to fall into one of those endless loops of “thank you,” “no, thank you” and so forth.

Short, simple and I hope memorable. Enough so that the next time I have the opportunity I will remember to do it, whether or not Janet is along.

Dang! I Missed Todd Akin’s Keynote Address

Senate candidate Todd Akin, star of the Republican National Convention.

Life for a Comcast customer can be so frustrating. I’ve just gone 10 rounds with my DVR and the cable guide’s “search” malfunction. And I sit here in abject defeat.

My goal was to program it so I wouldn’t miss Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin’s keynote speech at the Republican Convention. After all, this man has skyrocketed to the top of GOP intellectual circles with his reasoned discourse on the intersection between female reproductive organs and the criminal justice system.

Akin single handedly destroyed the Obama campaign’s communication plan. Instead of continuing to trumpet Obama’s successful record as an engine of jobs creation and economic titan, campaign flaks are now forced to focus on abortion, just like it was the 90’s all over again.

So you can understand why I didn’t want to miss the crowd’s ovation as Akin discussed ovulation. But now Akin’s moment in the sun has come and gone, and I missed it.

Instead I’ve been trying to decide where I went wrong in my initial judgment on Akin. Before the Washington Post, the New York Times and various broadcasting networks made him chairman of the GOP and Romney & Ryan’s running mate, I had considered Akin an egregious violator of one of the cardinal rules for political candidates: male politicians should never discuss a woman’s private parts.

Those organs are mysterious. A combustible mix of plumbing, hormones and resentment, somehow based on perceived male deficiencies in telecommunication and “understanding.”

Which means the specifics of reproduction have no place in a male’s campaign issue grid. Instead one merely acknowledges that babies are conceived through a process that will remain somewhat ill–defined [closely resembling the specifics of my father’s discussion of “the birds and bees”] and then move on to a stirring defense of the unborn child’s right to life.

When Akin said, “From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare … If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that down,” the comment allowed Democrats to focus on the outrage done to the first victim, the woman, and ignore the outrage they want to perpetrate on the second victim, the unborn child.

This Akin shuffle works to the advantage of “choice” supporters because there is a fundamental hypocrisy at the heart of Democrat insistence on abortion in the case of “rape, incest and the health of the mother.” (Republican fellow–travelers substitute the word “life” for “health” because even they agree “anxiety” on the part of the mother is not sufficient cause for abortion.)

That hypocrisy is found in the contrast between fervent Democrat opposition to the imposition of capital punishment on the rapist and the unyielding advocacy for the application of capital punishment on the unborn. What this does is visit the punishment for the crime of the father on the innocent child — a system of jurisprudence favored by Nazis and Communists, as has been noted elsewhere.

Pro–life supporters have trouble persuading the uncommitted public on this difficult issue because the rape victim is tangible and visible, while the child is at least initially invisible and potential. Fortunately a brilliant television commercial by the Susan B. Anthony List will, I hope, make our job easier.

The spot is titled, “How Will You Answer?” and it is found at: http://www.sba-list.org/ (on the home page click on “How Will You Answer?” on the upper right). The commercial showcases Melissa Ohden who is the survivor of a botched abortion. Her tiny body — or clump of tissue, if you are a Planned UnParenthood contributor — was casually discarded after an abortion. But Melissa was still alive and her faint cries touched the heart of one of the nurses who saved her life by literally removing her from the garbage can.

Ms. Ohden, as far as I know, was not the product of a rape, but she makes the point just the same. Life is life whether conceived in love, violence or indifference. These unborn babies deserve the same Constitutional protections granted to rapists. John F. Kennedy said life isn’t fair and certainly carrying a child to term after a rape qualifies as manifestly unfair.  However it’s nine months of discomfort for the mother as opposed to the eternity of death for the child.

Watching Melissa Ohden tell her story puts everything in perspective, whether the topic is babies that survive a late–term abortion — her specific issue — or those executed after a rape. The ad is currently running in Missouri where one hopes Akin will graciously let Ms. Ohden assume future responsibility for the topic.

As for me, I’m learning all I can about how to program my DVR. I certainly wouldn’t want to miss Akin’s speech at the inauguration.