Think about it – why did he choose salt, the single most popular condiment in the world? Notice, Obama didn’t go after pepper – that mysterious gray-black condiment that is an acquired taste.  Nor did he choose to assail ketchup or mustard – they enhance the diversity of our condiment selection and, therefore, will be receiving subsidies as part of the administration’s Condiment Equalization Program.  He chose salt because salt had it coming – with its purity tests (have you ever seen a grain that wasn’t pristine white?) and its white supremacy.  Salt is on every table in the world, not to mention in most foods and snacks we buy.  It is elitist, arrogant, and incites violence everywhere – using the kind of incendiary and truly frightening rhetoric we saw in San Francisco in the 70s.  Salt causes obesity – a direct assault on joints and muscles; and contributes to serious heart disease.  In short, salt is the single greatest threat to our domestic security – not radical Islamic terrorists.  We must stop the advance of salt before it is too late.

I don’t seriously believe the war on salt is racist, but it seems this is the type of ‘cogent analysis’ that passes for political discourse these days.  Any sign of dissent from the current administration is dubbed racist, dangerous and incendiary.  No matter how many leftists/Marxists we have on record declaring the patriotic value of dissent during the Bush years, any divergent opinion is now seditious and inflammatory.  They keep pushing the lines further to the left, and anything that ignores their ground rules is reflexively racist.  Even pointing out that the simple newsworthiness of incidents of true racism indicates we have come a long way from Jim Crow, as one NRO reader wrote to Jay Nordlinger, is derided as racist.  I am not saying racism is dead – I have met several truly racist people.  Society as a whole, however, is far more tolerant than even just a few years ago.  Apparently the left is not familiar with the boy who cried wolf – when the wolf actually showed up, no one cared.  We’re not there yet, but when normal, patriotic Americans who happen to disagree with one of the most left-of-center administrations in history are reflexively derided as racist, people will soon stop caring.  Using derogatory homo-erotic nicknames for a truly grassroots movement is not going to endear the electorate to the liberal establishment or the mainstream media.  There is a reason Republicans are up 10 points on the generic ballot and Fox News has more viewers that most of the other networks combined.   

Martin Luther King, Jr. (R-GA) spoke of a day when his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  (If you’re not familiar with the speech in toto, I would strongly suggest reading it…and perhaps sending a copy to the POTUS.  Were he alive today, I believe he would be deeply saddened by the divisive politicization of racial differences.  We have now elected an African-American president, African-American legislators, and African-American governors.  African-Americans succeed in business, the law, politics, education and every other facet of society.  Yet, to hear the rhetoric coming from the Democratic Party, we are worse off today than we were in 1860.  Such is the state of our nation, and a sad state it is.  We cannot control their vitriol, we can only control our actions.  Reject racism -true racism, not the imagined racism we hear so much about – and be ever vigilant, for if we operate from the moral high ground, we will never lose.

I’ll take it one step further – perhaps this is a direct result of Toyota’s dominance during the ill-conceived cash-for-clunkers program.  We, like countless others across the country, used cash-for-clunkers to purchase our Toyota Yaris (thankfully we chose a model that has thus far escaped recall).  It only made sense – why would we buy a GM or Chrysler when the fate of their company is questionable at best?  So long as GM and Chrysler are dependent on the government, there will be no consumer confidence in their endeavors.  Would you want to buy a car from the people that brought you Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs or any of the other horribly mismanaged government programs we’ve suffered?  I certainly wouldn’t.  We have seen how fickle this administration and this Congress are.  Loyalty and vested interest might be there today, but that can quickly evaporate depending on the latest polls or the opinion of the most vocal leftist group.  Not exactly instilling confidence in the product or the brand – especially since everything Obama touches turns to dust (Chicago Olympics, Copenhagen, Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine, Martha Coakley, health care, etc.).

The problem with GM vehicles covers those manufactured between 2005 and 2010 (uh-oh, I already hear ‘Bush’s fault!’).  Toyota’s recall dated back as far for one model, while most recalled were manufactured between 2008 and 2010. Legislators couldn’t get in front of the cameras fast enough to issue full-throated denunciations of the delays at Toyota in addressing the issue.   One would expect to hear the denunciations of delayed action from the Washington elites regarding the GM matter as well. So far, I have heard nothing.  I know that asking for parity in the treatment of these two issues is asking a lot, but it isn’t unreasonable.  This is why government should not involve itself in the daily affairs of business, and the perfect example of the effect a public option would have on healthcare.  Democrats disingenuously clamor for fake competition to bring costs down (while I welcome their acknowledgement of the efficacy of free market principles, I think they still have a lot to learn about business) by embracing the public option, but they fail to realize you cannot compete with the government.  It is hard to compete on a level playing field with someone who owns the bully pulpit, has the infinite resources of the American taxpayer at their disposal (at least to the point Americans have enough and revolt) and writes the rules of the game.  The disparate handling of these recalls is a perfect illustration of why we must fight the public option with every fiber of our being.

According to Politico: 

Stark, the second-ranking Ways and Means Committee Democrat, was “extremely belligerent” toward interviewers from the Office of Congressional Ethics last year, insulted the staff members who came to interview him and had a video camera in his office during the session, according to a recently released report.

 ”Throughout the interview, Rep. Stark was extremely belligerent and frequently insulted the OCE staff members interviewing him,” Kedric Payne, the investigative counsel, wrote in a memorandum deep in the 122-page report. “Approximately 15 minutes into the interview, it also became apparent to the OCE interviewers that Rep. Stark was videotaping the exchange.” It is not standard for members to record interviews with the OCE, but members have the option of having a court reporter present for interviews.

A few things about that excerpt struck me.  First, it only helps us drive home the point that liberals in Congress are elitist, out of touch and have a sense of entitlement that is beyond reproach.  The mere suggestion he acted inappropriately is apparently sufficient for a steward of our tax dollars to lash out at those serving on a panel established by his dear friend, Speaker Pelosi, to give the façade of integrity in her swamp.  Class act, Pete – going after those who are simply doing their job, hiding behind an oversized ego to distract from your diminutive mental prowess.  Second, Pete Stark videotaped the interviewers without their consent and, for a period, without their knowledge.  Given that this man has railed against the incursions of the Patriot Act, one would expect him to adhere to those same precepts of freedom and due process in his taxpayer-funded office that he expected authorities to confer on suspected criminals and terrorists.  Opposing the Patriot Act, Stark stated, “Using the PATRIOT Act over the last four years, the Bush Administration has monitored meetings of citizens who dare to criticize their government. It has searched homes without warrants and listened in on phone conversations without any reasonable justification. If this is the price of security, now is a fair time to ask: what security have we gained?”  I guess job security trumps national security, and the rights of congressional staffers.

Politico also mentions this tidbit:

Stark has a history of unusual behavior, but the latest episode is significant because he is in line for the powerful Ways and Means Committee chairmanship should Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) have to step aside because of his own ethics issues.

I guess the drain on Nancy’s swamp is clogged.  At least we know that if Rangel is forced aside, the status quo will remain on Ways and Means.  I think it’s time to tie the mantra of ‘Culture of Corruption’ around Pelosi’s neck.  She campaigned vigorously on ethics and even has the audacity to say she is running the most open and ethical Congress in history…and she didn’t even laugh or seem to notice the irony.  Healthcare bills crafted behind closed doors?  300 page amendments dropped in the hopper at 3:00am the day of controversial votes?  Stark, Rangel, Mollohan, Jackson Jr., Richardson, Visclosky, Waters and countless other members of her caucus are actively or have been under investigation since her ascent to the Speakership.  Stark is not alone in ethical trouble, he is just the most humorous to watch squirm.

Politico barely scratches the surface of Stark’s wacky antics.  Other highlights from Stark’s illustrious thirty-eight year career in the house: 

Claimed the more we owe in national debt, the wealthier we are.  Then told the interviewer to get the **** out of here.  Classy.

“You don’t have the money to fund the war or children.  But you’re going to spend it  to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough to send to Iraq to get their heads blown up for the President’s amusement.”  Yeah, because that is a great argument to support SCHIP. 

His not at all insulting comments on religion.  Funny thing is, he believes his existence is proof you don’t need religion to lead a moral and just life.  Someone really needs to teach classes in irony on the Hill. 

Apparently passing foster care legislation makes them proxy-grandparents to foster children everywhere.  I know Hillary said it takes a village to raise a child, but I don’t think she intended it to be spearheaded by the village idiot. 

A beautiful voicemail left for a constituent who had the sheer audacity to write his congressman criticizing his vote on a controversial issue, Iraq. 

And the best: “I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn’t be worth the urine.” One must have a high opinion of oneself to ascribe that kind of value to one’s urine. 

With his record of constituent services, I am dumbfounded that he is still in office.  No wonder California is in the shape it’s in – you have an electorate that thinks this is the best Representative they can get in Washington.  Add to it the fact that Stark called has insulted a black HHS Secretary as a disgrace to his race; called Congresswoman Nancy Johnson a whore for the insurance industry; challenged Scott McInnis to a fight in the Ways & Means Committee, calling him a little fruitcake; used anti-Semitic insults against a Jewish colleague for supporting the Persian Gulf War; and referred to moderate members of his caucus as brain dead.  Pete Stark is nuts and, I would argue, has proven himself mentally unfit to serve in office.  I have come to expect a certain amount of liberal insanity coming from the San Francisco Bay area (probably as a result of Stark), but this guy is beyond the pale.  Just out of curiosity, is it too late to rescind the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?

Women face the same risks to life and limb in the abortionists’ clinics as they do in the back alley.  One abortionist in Philadelphia (Dr. Kermit Gosnell) allowed an unlicensed and apparently untrained assistant to perform examinations and administer medication.  This assistant had already administered Demerol, Promethazine and Diazepam when the doctor arrived and proceeded to administer yet more medication (and no, it wasn’t the same doctor treating Michael Jackson’s insomnia).  As a result of this malpractice, the woman suffered an arrhythmia after her abortion and subsequently died.  This was not the result of some untrained hack in the alley with a coat hanger, as black market abortions have been so vividly described.  This was a fully licensed, registered doctor practicing within the confines of the law.  Where is the outrage?  Where is the unyielding commitment to women’s health?  I thought the whole movement was dedicated to ensuring women had access to affordable and safe healthcare.  I should, by now, be used to the deafening silence of hypocritical left-wingers when their rhetoric fails to match reality (see the feminist’s rush to defend Sarah Palin).  Where is the coverage that rivals that of the murder of abortionist George Tiller?  Was his life worth more than this young woman’s, simply because he had paid handsomely to ingratiate himself to the Democratic establishment?  This woman died in November 2009, but the story doesn’t end there.  Apparently the doctor had been publicly reprimanded in 1995 for employing an unlicensed assistant and allowing that assistant to see and treat at least one patient on his own.  Had more stringent oversight been employed, or more rigorous penalties applied to this gross negligence, perhaps the young woman from the recent November case might have lived.

Most offensive of all, the Pennsylvania authorities have raided this abortionist’s office several times in the last four days, during which they discovered dozens of frozen fetuses, some dating as far back as thirty years.  How can a doctor be allowed to horde carcasses of aborted fetuses for thirty years, during which time he was investigated by state licensing authorities?  How can the state be so oblivious to what is going on in this abortionist’s clinic – to the point of allowing a sociopath to horde his victims’ carcasses for thirty years?  The state was negligent to the point of complicity in this particular case, having allowed this doctor to practice his particular ‘medicine’ unrestrained.  Unfortunately this lack of oversight cost a woman her life.  Who knows how many more there are whose lives could have been saved had the government taken a more active regulatory role in the industry of death they helped sanction over thirty years ago.  I normally bristle at the mere concept of government regulation or intrusion, but this industry has been given carte blanche to circumvent the laws of society and moral decency for far too long.  Their lobby in Washington may be powerful but, as we have seen with the Tea Party movement and the growing sense of grassroots discontent, nothing can withstand the power of an informed, active, engaged and morally enraged electorate. 

Abortion on demand is not a right; it is merely a sacrosanct privelege of a population that is unable to accept personal accountability.  Our society treats abortion as merely another form of birth control – nevermind the unintended consequences of playing God.  The abortion ‘rights’ movement has a history of less than ethical conduct to acheive this end.  Margaret Sanger, the mother of the abortion ‘rights’ movement, believed that abortion could be used to limit procreation among the mentally disabled and immigrant groups (especially among Africans) and, therefore, help rid society of less desirable elements.  Why is it that leftists are so committed to Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest, yet seem to neglect the whole concept of natural selection?  The culmination of her life’s work – Planned Parenthood – has made it their mission to circumvent the will of parents and eschew their religious beliefs when it comes to their children’s sexuality.  They constantly lobby to allow minors to abort their children without notifying the parents, and encourage promiscuity among teens.  PP adamantly opposes abstinence education, despite the proven efficacy of such programs. They do everything in their power to prey on the vulnerable during moments of profound confusion and weakness to encourage abortion, yet they don’t bother with the psychological impacts of abortion.  It is telling that some of the most vociferous opponents of abortion are those who have had one of their own.

Much in the tradition of Ms. Sanger, Dr. Gosnell apparently has no concept of the value and worth of human life, no moral compass, and no sense of ethical conduct.  The fact that his practice was allowed to continue, uninterrupted and undeterred, to the point that it cost a woman her life and those dozens of infants their dignity, is a sad commentary on our society today.  This should be a wake up call to all those who support the sanctity and dignity of life that those who are ideologically opposed to our cause will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.  They are going so far as to open abortion ‘supercenters,’ lest one woman be made to wait more than fifteen minutes to end the life of her unborn child.  The abortion industry has grown beyond control, and has done a tremendous job of entrenching itself in society.  How much abortionist money has flowed into Washington?  More importantly, how much more can we tolerate?