For health care, ostensibly, but really to shore up our bond rating:

President Barack Obama wants Congress to consider taxing the wealthy instead of workers to pay for a health-care overhaul, as House Democrats discuss a plan to require health insurance for most Americans.

The Obama administration stepped up efforts to influence health-care legislation today as advisers David Axelrod and Austan Goolsbee appeared on television talk shows to discuss the issue.

The president is trying to avoid broad-based levies such as a Senate proposal to tax some employer-provided health benefits Axelrod said. Instead he is urging lawmakers to reconsider limiting all tax deductions for Americans in the highest tax brackets.

When you’re set to add $10 trillion to the US debt, what matters if you add another trillion or two? Nothing – unless your masters in China are saying they won’t buy more US debt unless the tax take is increased both to ensure sufficient funds to pay ever higher interest as well as soak up the money the Fed is printing as a means of heading off hyper-inflation. Its all good, except for us…because “wealthy” doesn’t mean “Jay Rockefeller” but, instead, “small business owner” who has a net worth of $2 million with a gross annual income of $300,000…thus making him “wealthy” and a fit target for punitive taxation.

Tax and spend, borrow and spend, tax and spend…it all has to end, somewhere; lets hope it doesn’t end with 20% unemployment, interest rates and inflation.

Feeling unhappy? Want some joy in your life? Well, there’s only one place to go:

God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing. – C. S. Lewis

Like I said:

In his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, President Barack Obama claimed: “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar University — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing.”

Obama is not much of a “student of history” if he believes this. Almost every advance he attributes to the Muslims was due to someone else.

The non-Muslim Chinese invented the magnetic compass and printing (Gutenberg invented not printing, but movable type). The non-Muslim Hindu Indians invented algebra and the decimal numbering system. The non-Muslim European Christians invented the university.

I can’t address advances in medicine, but I have studied the history of astronomy and physics. The Muslims contributed nothing.

Islam walked into the vacuum of exhausted Byzantium and simply took over some of the most advanced and wealthy places on Earth…and then negligently allowed it to decay over the centuries until what had been at the forefront in the 8th century was hopelessly behind as early as the 13th. The grandeur of Islam was a fading flower planted by others and merely exploited by Moslem rulers. Obama’s grasp of history wouldn’t matter, except that he’s President of the United States and he’s repeating to the world the leftist and Islamist lies about the development of civilization. There is no need to insult Islam, but there is no need to play a “self esteem” game and try to puff them up, either. Truth is what is needed in this world, not lies; even well meaning lies.

There’s a lot of chatter going on in the blogosphere right about anonymous and pseudonymous blogging and whether or not it is right to out a pseudonymous blogger.

Yesterday, Ed Whelan of Bench Memos outed an pseudonymous blogger (who blogged under the name “Publius”) who he felt crossed a line with a personal attack.

Several bloggers I know and respect have weighed in on the appropriateness of this action.

Ed Morrissey:

Had Publius published Ed’s personal information, or had slandered him factually, I could understand the need to make his identity public and force him to bear responsibility for such attacks.  However, as Rick says, calling someone a “know-nothing demagogue” doesn’t qualify.  It may be annoying, and I think it reflects very poorly on Publius, but that’s the kind of ad hominem attack bloggers get from Day One.  Truman’s Axiom comes into play here — if a blogger can’t take that kind of heat, he ought to reconsider blogging.

James Joyner:

While I generally find the practice of revealing people’s secrets to the public distasteful, there are times when it’s appropriate.  Public officials who are abusing their power is the most obvious case.   Here, however, there is no public benefit achieved. Whelan is simply annoyed that Publius had been “biting at my ankles in recent months” and critiquing his blog posts.

Rick Moran:

The point is, there are a lot of good reasons for bloggers to remain anonymous and Ed Whalen has no right to decide differently just because he got steamed about someone’s response to his analysis. Did Publius commit a crime? Was he slandering Whalen? If not, Whalen’s fit of personal pique looks low, tawdry, childish, and vengeful. The closest Publius got to getting personal with Whelan was in calling him a “know-nothing demagogue.” And this was after making the point that Whelan knew better and was simply pandering to conservative sensibilities.

Robert Stacy McCain:

The “no harm, no foul” principle might apply to this situation. Whelan blogs under his own name and felt that he was being abused by the anonymous “Publius.” The fact that “Publius” was relatively obscure — I’m not into legal blogging, and have seldom read Obsidian Wings — might make Whelan’s “outing” of him seem an overreaction. But I don’t presume to judge what is or is not abuse of another. If Blevins is harmed by his “outing,” he ought to be able to demonstrate (not merely assert) that harm.

Personally, this issue is a tough one for me. I have been blogging since 2003, and from day one under by real name. Sometimes the price you pay to blog openly with your own identity is high. At one point, I was convinced my blogging actually had a negative impact on my job search when I was unemployed a few years ago. I have gotten anonymous phone calls and threats. I’ve had property vandalized. There is a price to pay by putting your political views out in the open, and that price is gets even bigger when you are more successful — which changes everything. Of course, it was too late for me to change my mind at that point.

I know bloggers who blog under pseudonyms, and that is their choice. I am well aware of the risks involved of blogging under your own name/identity, and don’t blame any blogger for choosing to avoid all the crap you inevitably have to put up with when you reach a level of notoriety in the blogosphere.

That being said, I completely understand the frustration of being attacked by anonymous commenters and bloggers, who, from where you stand, aren’t willing to put their own reputations at risk when they publish their words to the internet. It is a lot easier to make baseless, personal attacks on another blogger when you are anonymous, than when you go by your own name. The main reason is accountability. For everything I blog, here or elsewhere, I am accountable for every single word. Anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers aren’t so much. With that knowledge, I can understand Ed Whelan’s actions. 

For what it is worth, liberal bloggers, who have been expressing outrage over Whelan’s actions, have a history of exposing details of the private lives of Republicans, Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right, but a double standard is nothing short of hypocrisy.

We belittle news stories that rely on anonymous sources because anonymous sources (and the reporters who keep relying on them) aren’t to be trusted, for a variety of reasons. Similarly, we have every reason to be skeptical of anonymous bloggers, and have every reason to feel angry when they hide behind a wall of anonymity while erroneously trashing our reputations. 

I use a lot of restraint when dealing with bloggers who attack me and/or my positions. I prefer not to get into sophomoric back-and-forths, and to the best of my abilities avoid them by ignoring bloggers who feel personal attacks are a viable substitute for reasoned debate. 

Ed Whelan explained his actions thusly:

Law professor John Blevins (aka publius) and others seem to assume that I owed some sort of obligation to Blevins not to expose his pseudonymous blogging.  I find this assumption baffling.  A blogger may choose to blog under a pseudonym for any of various self-serving reasons, from the compelling (e.g., genuine concerns about personal safety) to the respectable to the base.  But setting aside the extraordinary circumstances in which the reason to use a pseudonym would be compelling, I don’t see why anyone else has any obligation to respect the blogger’s self-serving decision.  And I certainly don’t see why someone who has been smeared by the blogger and frequently had his positions and arguments misrepresented should be expected to do so.

Blevins desired to be unaccountable—irresponsible—for the views he set forth in the blogosphere.  He wanted to present one face to his family, friends, and colleagues and another to the blogosphere.  That’s understandable but hardly deserving of respect.  If he wanted to avoid the risk of being associated publicly with his views, he shouldn’t have blogged.  It’s very strange that angry lefties are calling me childish (and much worse) when it’s Blevins who was trying to avoid responsibility for his blogging.  (Law professor Michael Krauss has a good post on the matter.)

Sure, anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers have legitimate concerns for not using their real names. The blogger Ed Whelan outed, gave several “private and professional reasons”:

As I told Ed (to no avail), I have blogged under a pseudonym largely for private and professional reasons.  Professionally, I’ve heard that pre-tenure blogging (particularly on politics) can cause problems.  And before that, I was a lawyer with real clients.  I also believe that the classroom should be as nonpolitical as possible – and I don’t want conservative students to feel uncomfortable before they take a single class based on my posts.  So I don’t tell them about this blog.  Also, I write and research on telecom policy – and I consider blogging and academic research separate endeavors.  This, frankly, is a hobby.

Privately, I don’t write under my own name for family reasons.  I’m from a conservative Southern family – and there are certain family members who I’d prefer not to know about this blog (thanks Ed).  Also, I have family members who are well known in my home state who have had political jobs with Republicans, and I don’t want my posts to jeopardize anything for them (thanks again).

Well, we all have similar risks. My political views have strained and/or ended friendships, caused tension or discomfort in the workplace, and have been the source many arguments at family gatherings. But, bloggers who make the choice to remain anonymous ought to respect bloggers who, for one reason or another, don’t have the luxury of anonymity, and give them the courtesy of refraining from personal attacks they themselves are immune to.  

It is not my place to say whether Whelan’s actions were appropriate or not. To me, this situation underscores the point that anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers are not playing on a level playing field as bloggers who stake their name and reputations on their published words on a daily basis. And when the latter feels slighted by the former, it’s not unreasonable for them to want to level that playing field.

UPDATE: More from Don Surber…

UPDATE II: More links and reactions via Joe Gandelman…

UPDATE III: Blogger Simon Owens spoke to both Whelan and Blevins…

Well, really, its far more than a phrase – its a rather long quote. But given that we are about to have a debate over Sotomayor and this, in turn, is bound to bring up Roe and the overall Life issue, it is worthwhile to step back in time when the issue wasn’t whether or not we should rip unborn babies to pieces, but whether or not we should use methods to prevent pregnancy:

…I despise Birth-Control because it is a weak and wobbly and cowardly thing. It is not even a step along the muddy road they call Eugenics; it is a flat refusal to take the first and most obvious step along the road of Eugenics. Once grant that their philosophy is right, and their course of action is obvious; and they dare not take it; they dare not even declare it. If there is no authority in things which Christendom has called moral, because their origins were mystical, then they are clearly free to ignore all the difference between animals and men; and treat men as we treat animals. They need not palter with the stale and timid compromise and convention called Birth-Control. Nobody applies it to the cat. The obvious course for Eugenists is to act towards babies as they act towards kittens. Let all the babies be born; and then let us drown those we do not like. I cannot see any objection to it; except the moral or mystical sort of objection that we advance against Birth-Prevention. And that would be real and even reasonable Eugenics; for we could then select the best, or at least the healthiest, and sacrifice what are called the unfit. By the weak compromise of Birth-Prevention, we are very probably sacrificing the fit and only producing the unfit. The births we prevent may be the births of the best and most beautiful children; those we allow, the weakest or worst. Indeed, it is probable; for the habit discourages the early parentage of young and vigorous people; and lets them put off the experience to later years, mostly from mercenary motives. Until I see a real pioneer and progressive leader coming out with a good, bold, scientific programme for drowning babies, I will not join the movement. – G K Chesterton

Chesterton was, of course, being tongue in cheek at the last, but the truth he wrote all those years ago about so-called birth-control applies to the issue of abortion – or, of course, “choice”, as our cowardly progressives of 2009 term it. Just as back then, so today: if there is no divine law against killing unborn children – and there must not be, if we are to do it – then the entire concept of inherent human dignity and rights goes right out the window…and why, then, should we allow any but the most physically and mentally fit to breed? As Chesterton asked, are we not likely allowing our best human specimens to eschew breeding and leaving the creation of the next generation to the weakest among us?

Human life is either inherently valuable and endowed by God with certain, unalienable rights, or it’s not. If you hold to the view that elective abortion is licit, then you are holding to the view – even if you don’t want to admit it – that there is no such thing as a human right…merely human privileges, revocable by the group at will.

About time this particular battle is joined in earnest:

The apologetics organization Catholic Answers has filed suit against the Internal Revenue Service claiming the federal tax collection agency has “intimidated” churches and non-profit groups into silence on politically controversial moral issues.

In an announcement posted at the organization’s web site, Catholic Answers president Karl Keating explained that the IRS fined the group for a 2004 e-letter it wrote saying that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry should not be allowed to receive Holy Communion.

Keating charged that Francis Kissling, then-leader of the pro-abortion front group “Catholics for a Free Choice,” had instigated the IRS action with a complaint.

He said Kissling “hated” Catholic Answers’ “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics,” which aimed to educate Catholics on issues such as abortion. However, the guide did not mention any candidates or political parties and was cleared of any violations by the IRS.

According to Keating, the IRS did rule that the e-letter’s remark about Sen. Kerry was “intervening” in the election, a charge Keating called “preposterous.”

He said the IRS has been using “very vague criteria” to “intimidate” churches, non-profits and ministries into “silence” on controversial moral issues.

“The intimidation has become so bad that nowadays, most churches and non-profits in America are scared to death even to talk about moral issues that are deemed ‘political’ (such as abortion).”

Especially now that we have a Democrat in the White House – and a long and troubling history of Democrat Presidents using the IRS to attack opponents – we must ensure that religious groups, as religious groups, are able to speak out on issues of the day. Religious groups must have full freedom of speech – able to speak out about candidates, parties and issues without let or hindrance from any government entity. We’ve gone far enough in forcing religion out of the public square and it is time we allowed it back in – part of our problem in 2009 is that our religious groups have to be extra careful in how they preach in public, lest they run afoul of anti-religious bureaucrats and politicians.

From North Dakota:

Snow falls in western ND, in June

Snow has fallen in Dickinson in June, the first time in nearly 60 years the city has seen snow past May.

National Weather Service meteorologist Janine Vining in Bismarck says there were unofficial reports of a couple of inches of snow in Dickinson on Saturday.

Vining says snow in North Dakota in June is uncommon, though it’s not unheard of. She says other parts of the state have seen June snow within the past 10 years.

Williston and Bismarck had received only rain as of mid-Saturday, but Vining said snow was possible in those cities later in the day.

It will be 84 degrees in Las Vegas tomorrow – that is rather toasty for most of you, but it is 12 degrees below normal.

Scary.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=ydaG6UprkU

Rob Port put it best, “We fought the American revolution to reject the idea of monarchs leading by divine right. Now, two and a half centuries later, we’re back to our political leaders being gods.” Sad isn’t it? But, as I have said many times before, the left’s desire to canonize Obama makes him extraordinarily dangerous. He is, perhaps, the biggest threat to our country’s prosperity, freedom, and security in history.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: From Powerline

Yes, that’s Obama all right–“standing above the world.” Good Lord. Reporters are often compared to teen-age girls with crushes on Obama, but, as the father of three present, former or about-to-be teen-age girls, I object to the analogy. I personally have never seen a teen-age girl make a fool of herself over a boy the way many–most–mainstream reporters have over Barack Obama.

Victor Davis Hanson tells a personal tale and illuminates just what is wrong with Obama’s world view. You. Must. Read. This.

…perhaps in three and a half years Americans will too…

The economic recession should have meant easy votes for Europe’s left-wing movements, longtime critics of unchecked capitalism.

Yet as Europe goes to the polls, left-leaning parties across the continent are looking likely to falter. That’s true both for those in government, such as in the U.K. and Spain, and in the opposition — such as France, Germany and Italy.

France’s Socialist Party is trying hard to rally voters ahead of Sunday’s European parliamentary elections. “Let’s unite with all the French who contest free market, unfair policies that aim at deregulating everything,” party leader Martine Aubry urged at a pre-election rally.

Yet less than 20% of voters say they plan to cast their ballot for the Socialist Party, according to recent surveys. That would be a weak performance considering France’s main opposition party got 29% of the votes in the last European parliamentary elections.

In Germany, the Social Democrats are expected to get only around 26% on Sunday, consistent with their low opinion-poll ratings ahead of Germany’s national elections in September. Italy’s center-left Partito Democratico is expected to get a similar percentage.

One reason is that as Europe tipped into recession, the right moved left — appropriating some of the left’s long-standing economic policies, including nationalizations and bailouts.

French conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, helped recapitalize French banks, earmarked six billion euros for the auto sector and lashed out at “rascal bosses” with huge pay packages.

So, my friends, there is hope for us too. Socialism will truly become a failed experiment in America… and the Democrats, who are rapidly bringing this country and its economy down, will find the voters less accepting of the government running businesses and every other aspect of our lives.

This news out of Europe is somewhat promising. If conservative parties can attract voters with a centrist platform in Europe, then perhaps there is a rightward shift happening across the continent, that may result in reversals of left wing policies in the long term.

Capitalism will prevail. Freedom will prevail. All we have to do is remove Obama and the Democrats from power.