Kristmas Karma

Every year around Christmas, for the past 7 years or so, and some years before that (ie. before and after I thought I could possibly be cool), I make it a point to watch Home Alone. Sure it's silly and not especially deep, but it's enjoyable, reminds me of my childhood, and it's good escapist fun.

Having already accomplished this tradition for 2009, I was pleased this morning, whilst snowed in from the Blizzard of '09, to find Home Alone 2: Lost in New York showing on ABC Family. It's a pretty good sequel, so I sat down to watch it.

Amongst the absurdity of the situation, screenwriter John Hughes works in his take on the 'True Meaning of Christmas'. Kevin feels remorse for how he has treated his family. His new friend, the pigeon feeding homeless lady tells him that a good deed "cancels out" a bad one. More than that, good deeds count double on Christmas Eve! Which religion's holiday are we celebrating again? Such shallow spiritualism is hardly new, but it brought my attention back to the following blog post my sister-in-law pointed me towards:

BenandJacq in the Blog: Santa Claus.

It's a short post, but very worth reading.

On a foundational level the story of Santa and the story of Jesus are exact opposites. Santa gives based on how good you are. Jesus gives based on how much you admit your inability to be good. And that might be confusing to my child.

None of how much the world celebrates Christmas should be surprising. In fact, you could almost say that turnabout is fair play. When a majority of "Christmas traditions" are non-Christian, either secular or of pagan origins, it's not much good to complain the world is co-opting our celebration when Christians have clearly co-opted much of theirs. Fighting back against the "War on Christmas" is a waste of time. Don't expect the world to be anything it's not.

On the other hand, don't overreact, by wholly minimizing Christmas like the Puritanical or Parliamentarian Protestants (to be fair, the type of behavior associated with Christmas in their time would likely make the most libertine of modern secular Christmas celebrators blanch). The Incarnation of God in flesh is a tremendous and crucial miracle for the redemption and reconciliation of mankind. Lets stop these cultural battles and tend to our own homes, taking care to keep the joy and thanksgiving to be found in Christ's birth first in our hearts.

Preventable Legislative Errors

Flipped over to CSPAN to see one of the HR-3962 supporters going on about preventable medical errors (in opposition to GOP tort reform efforts - which I'm not really a fan of myself, btw). They're the sixth bigger killer in the country, costs billions of dollars, etc. Curiously, he didn't mention what forcing fee-for-service down provider's throats had to do with the issue.

Fear the Reaper

I used to think Palin had gone off the deep end. Death Panels? Whatever one might say of the political position of a majority party having to respond to the Facebook post of a quitter ex-governor of a sparsely populated state, the death panel comment was over the top. Right? I mean, there wasn't anything in the healthcare reform bills that actually established such a thing. The mandatory (?) end of life counseling for seniors doesn't quite fit the bill.

At least that's the line I bought the whole time now. Then I found a link to this article on the Locker Room:

Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief

A number of excerpts are worth pointing out:

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.

...

True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."

...

"You can't avoid these questions," Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."

Emphasis mine.

Then there's what the column author grimly calls the "Reaper Curve"

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

Don't worry, Geezers aren't the only ones who aren't as worthy.

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).

Babies? Meh.

Folks, this is the ideological impetus for the type of health care reform being sought. Whether you feel this kind of philosophy has merit, it definitely smacks of the sort of bureaucratic panel that Palin mentioned.

Also, I think Palin did accomplish something in bringing the issue up: she put it in everyone's minds. She forced the Democrats to denounce the concept, not just as being absent from their plans, but something they viewed with equivalent disgust. So when the next round of healthcare reforms are being proposed*, anything remotely approaching a death panel will be jumped all over.

----------------------
* What, do you think they'll stop with one new law? Did you think Iraq was going to be a quick expedition to remove Saddam, install a pro-west democracy, and get out?

Hai guyz! Pls to violate your 501(c)(3) kthx

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/army-lord-obama-seeks-health-care-push-pulpit/

Alternate title: Theocracy on the Left II
Alternate alternate title: What if W did this?

Oi! The chutzpah!

ht: jlf lr

The face of 'Hate Groups'

Apparently we're to believe that it's William Kostric. According to ABC News, at least.

ABC News and "Scare Quotes"

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/comments?type=story&id=8322658

Mackey provided eight "reforms" he argued the U.S. can do to improve health care without increasing the deficit.

Contrast that with:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8326545&page=1

The president's remarks today, to be delivered to about 1,300 attendees, will focus on health insurance reform and the uninsured.

Meanwhile, supporters of health care reform have upped their rhetoric.

Urging Americans to keep going on reform, the former president -- whose own efforts for health care reform in office were unsuccessful -- expressed confidence that a bill will pass, even if the GOP is not on board.

So for ABC, when you support government centric healthcare reforms, they're reforms. When you support market based healthcare reforms, they're "reforms".

Any doubt that ABC has an institutionalized bias on the issue?

President unveils religion reform platform

Washington – The President took to the podium today to announce an ambitious new plan to provide a “public option” for religion. Citing statistics about the growing number of unbelievers in America, President Obama made his case standing amongst leading congressional Democrats. “America has long been a nation that looked to a higher power for guidance,” the President began. “But for too long now, private religion has been failing average Americans.” The President stated that the number of unbelieving Americans has risen to at least 35 million. Millions more, he says, have only minimal agnostic coverage. “The number is rising at an alarming rate. Private religion has had its chance to make believers out of this country, but it has failed.” The President stressed that the public plan would exist alongside private religion, competing with it. “If the private religions think that competition works, then we welcome it! If you’re satisfied with your current religion, you will be able to keep it!”

Key congressional leaders behind the proposal admit that things will have to change for private believers. Chris Dodd, a Democratic Senator from Connecticut and chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, says that the private religions will have to bring themselves under a unified tithing system. “Americans deserve justice, and God’s regressive flat-tithe keeps money in the hands of the super-rich.” Under the Senate version of the plan, private religions will have to implement a progressive tithe structure approved by the Board of Religious Practitioners and Examiners, headed by the President’s new Religion Czar. Dodd also promised to go after those who seek the protection of offshore tithe shelters, such as those popular in Israel and the Vatican City.

Among the most controversial proposals in both houses’ version of the plan is a religion mandate. All Americans must either currently have private religion, or enroll in the public plan. President Obama has moved to assuage those concerned by pointing out that anyone not quite as spiritual can enroll in plans such as “Secular Obamaism” and “Green”, and stresses that his Attorney General has informed him such a plan would therefore not be in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

The desired timeline for getting such a plan passed is tight. Democrats in Washington argue that there are escalating social costs to a growing population of unbelievers. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, stated, “Many Americans find themselves without the moral grounding a good religion gives them. Trapped and helpless in a dark and confusing world, they turn to preying on their fellow man. But what if, before they pulled the trigger of their pistol, they stopped to consider the greenhouse gases the burning gunpowder would produce?”

It remains to be seen whether a plan can come together in time for the August recess. There are still changes being made every day, and the last modification came when Congressman Mike Thompson, a Democrat from California’s 1st Congressional District, inserted a requirement that all communion wine in the country must contain alcohol. When asked if members of Congress would be required to find religion under the same choice of plans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said that members of Congress already have their own religion.

Summarizing his push, President Obama said he wanted to remind Americans of one of the principles on which the nation was founded. “Religion has always been considered a natural right. Since the first pilgrims escaped from persecution centuries ago, this nation has espoused that every American can have religion. Now, with the public finally ready to step up and provide this right for others, Americans will get the religion they deserve!”

Another wire service editorial

Reuters: Bush lifts offshore drilling ban in symbolic move

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday lifted a White House ban on offshore drilling to try to drive down soaring energy prices, a largely symbolic bid unlikely to have any short-term impact on high gasoline costs.

...

Congress too has a ban on offshore drilling and while it expires on September 30, it could be renewed. Plus, federal officials say it would take years for any oil to be produced in those areas, together making Bush's move largely symbolic. [emphasis added]

Now if they simply made the statement that it was symbolic just because of the legislative ban, then that’s fine. But the writer is clearly implying that the move is also symbolic because it would not produce oil any time in the near future. This is patently ridiculous. First of all, even if it didn’t have any effect on prices in the near-term, that it would eventually have an effect means that is not symbolic. By their same logic, quitting smoking at the age of 25 would be a symbolic move, because the serious health effects of smoking likely won’t manifest in the near term. And never mind that part of it, because the idea that gas prices aren’t at all affected by a future expectation of the market is just plain ignorant. And I wonder how many who would make such a claim are the same who have been on a rage demonizing speculators for driving up the price of oil?

(essentially cross-posted here)


Actually, come to think of it, even the fact that half of the barrier is down could have an effect on market anticipation. Prices should still be affected, if only slightly.

The Obamessiah ain't got nothin' on Judson C. Hammond

I'm reading through Gene Healy's The Cult of the Presidency. It's a fascinating examination of how the office of the Presidency has transformed from its original role of a simple Chief Magistrate, to one of a more enlightened, benevolent deity figure. As the book jacket quotes (haven't gotten to it yet, I think), "Very few Americans seem to think it odd, says Healy, 'when presidential candidates talk as if they're running for a job that's a combination of guardian angel, shaman, and supreme warlord of the earth.'"

Anyway, turns out this encroachment is nothing new. At the end of the chapter, "'Progress' and the Presidency," which is a chapter on how early 20th-century progressives pushed for an expanded executive authority, Healy recounts what must be an equally hilarious and disturbing film:

A remarkable film produced in 1932 and released shortly after FDR's election captured the changes in the public's orientation toward the presidency. Financed by William Randolph Hearst and starring Walter Huston, Gabriel over the White House depicts a president literally touched by an angel and empowered to heal the country and the world. The movie's fictional president, Judson C. Hammond, begins as an unflattering amalgam of Harding and Coolidge, a party hack more interested in bedding his comely assistant than in dealing with the country's ongoing economic woes.

After Hammond is gravely injured in a car crash, the archangel Gabriel visits him in the hospital. Gabriel imbues the comatose Hammond with the Holy Spirit of presidential activism. Hammond awakens from the coma, declares a state of emergency, and threatens Congress with a declaration of martial law should they refuse to pass his legislative program, which includes federally subsidized agriculture, a ban on mortgage foreclosures, and a CCC-style "Army of Construction" that will give a job to every unemployed man in America. To eradicate organized crime, Hammond authorizes a special army unit to fight gangsters, several of whom are convicted via military tribunal, then executed with the Statue of Liberty visible in the background. Toward the end of the movie, President Hammond uses a demonstration of American air power to force other world leaders to disarm, thereby ending the scourge of war. Then, with his work on Earth done, the president ascends into Heaven."

Unreal. I have to think it's slightly exaggerated, but I sure hope not. I MUST find this movie and see it. And I hope an excerpt that long was well within fair use. I'll shoot the author an email with a link to see if he minds. Two points in my defense: 1) I have found the book so far to be very enjoyable, and would encourage folks to read it -and- 2) No one reads this blog anyway.

Ya THINK!?

Headline: "Doctors pull screws, nails from metal-eating man"

Quote: "Luis Zarate was taken to the regional hospital of Trujillo earlier this week by his family after complaining of sharp stomach pains."


There are all kinds of joke and pun opportunities here, but what's the point?

Keep on rockin' in the Free World

Alternate title: The Freedom of Religion and Expression are dormant in Canada

Too much?

Read this and decide for yourself.

And did you see what I did there with the Canadian artist in the title?

Anyway, money quotes:

A Christian pastor has been given a lifetime ban against uttering anything "disparaging" about gays. Not against anything "hateful", let alone something legally defined as "hate speech". Just anything negative.

So a pastor cannot give a sermon.

But he must give a false sermon; he is positively ordered to renounce his deeply held religious beliefs, and apologize to his tormentor for having those views.

And then that pastor is ordered to declare to his entire city that he has renounced his religious views, even though he has not.

And from a commenter:

-The truth is no defense

-Intent is no defense

-The rules of evidence do not apply

-The precedents in courts do not apply

-Legal jurisdiction does not apply

-The Constitution does not apply; including the Charter

-Consistency and sense do not apply

-Mens rea and Actus rea do not apply

-Burden of proof does not apply

-Canadian law itself does not apply; including the Charter of rights and freedoms

-The Magna Carta and 800 years of legal inheritance does not apply

-Human rights do not apply

-Democracy does not apply

-Sanity does not apply

-The fine country we call Canada.... does not apply

Those in the Star Chamber will pass their judgment on us all and drive out the witches among us.

Welcome to Salem.
May | 06.06.08 - 6:53 pm | #

Here is the letter in question, that appeared in the Red Deer Advocate, a local paper in Alberta.

Now personally, I think publicly crafting an idea of battle between homosexuals and heterosexuals is a very wrong thing to do. I think Christians should be reaching the world with the Gospel, and let the chastening of God do the changing. All beside the point, though. The idea that such writings should not be protected speech is outrageous. And present a very real example for the slippery slope argument that has been employed against "Hate Crime" legislation since the beginning.

ht: jlf lr

The Minimum Wage, Eugenics, and the NAACP

This morning on NC Spin, the panelists were addressing the NAACP in North Carolina and their effectiveness, after their rally in Raleigh, in which they presented their 14 point agenda. Included was the following item:

Restitution for the 1891 Wilmington race riots and sterilization of poor, black women in the first half of the 20th century

The sterilization part is in reference to a horrid, dark period in our state's history. Long after eugenics had fallen out of favor, the North Carolina eugenics program continued into the late 70s!

As you can expect, the NAACP is rightly denouncing this horrible practice. And if any of the people affected by this program remain, then I hope they seek restitution.

But there is an irony here for the NAACP. As mentioned by Chris Fitzsimon, the NAACP fought especially hard for the minimum wage increase in the state in the last session. And the historical impetus for the minimum wage is not too distant from that of Eugenics, as I first saw here. As Sidney Webb, early minimum wage warrior, put it:

Of all ways of dealing with these unfortunate parasites [undesirable classes], the most ruinous to the community is to allow them unrestrainedly to compete as wage earners.

The minimum wage would price the 'undesirables' out of the labor market. Eugenics through economics. So it just seems funny to me to see the NAACP simultaneously condemning (rightly) eugenics with the one hand, and unwittingly attempting to advance it with the other.

We're from the government, and we're here to fix your soul.

Alternate title: Theocracy on the Left

Since I just had a post about Obama as demigod, this needed a post on here.

Michelle Obama, during a speech at UCLA about a month ago, said:

That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls - our souls are broken in this nation.

Creepy stuff.

Great quote

So my roommate and I are watching one of the ESPN Top 20 list shows, and they're doing Top 20 NFL Postseason Performances. On the list was Desmond Howard from Super Bowl XXXI. In reference to a kickoff return for a touchdown, he said:

I'm actually looking up at the Jumbotron to make sure no one's gaining ground because I wanted to get to the end zone and do my robot dance.

Under construction

Monkeying with the template, but time to go to work. So it'll look a little crappy for at least today.

You folks know I LOATHE the phrase, "GIT R DONE"

But darn if I can't come up with a better thing to say after reading this story:

Johnston County Homeowner Beats Up Burglar

YES WE CAN (walk on water?)

Ok. This is scary. On first brush, I don't know if the author of that blog is being tongue-in-cheek or not. But the compilation of earnest quotes tells the story all the same.

Yikes.

HT: Ed Lasky at American Thinker via Hal Young at JLF

WREATHES!!!!!!!!!

I've had it. One wreath per house is plenty. Maybe two if you can make one look nice on a garage door or a gate or something. BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS TO PUT ONE LITTLE WREATH ON EVERY SINGLE WINDOW!!!


Ok, I've settled down a little. Maybe I'm over-reacting. I just have an aversion to trends, particularly in Christmas decorations. I didn't like the icicle lights until a year or two ago. Before that, I found them repulsive. Now I would like to put them up on our balcony, but my roommate has not been converted over. Bah humbug to him.

And for the record, I was always referring specifically to wreathes on the outside of the house.

and speaking of Boortz...

The Fair Tax is taking a lot of hits with every added bit of publicity (for those that don't know, the Fair Tax would replace all federal taxes with a 23% point-of-sale consumption tax on retail purchases). Huckabee recently gave a very simplistic reason for supporting it, and made a bit of a mistake in the process:

"You end the underground economy," Huckabee said at a recent luncheon for the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce. "Illegals, prostitutes, pimps, gamblers, drug dealers - everybody pays taxes."

The WSJ editorial board, particularly James Taranto in his often entertaining Best of the Web today online column, jumped all over the claim. Taranto correctly pointed out that because no drug dealer or pimp will actually report the money he makes so as to pay the Fair Tax, such items and services would actually be purchased with pre-tax income! That's right, just like contributions to your 401k.

To be fair, while Huckabee's claim is way too far-reaching, the Fair Tax might do more to limit the tax-loss effects of the underground economy when it comes time for the drug dealers and pimps to purchase their own retail goods with the money they made from their illegal trade. Under our current system, their income would never be taxed directly. One could certainly argue that the Fair Tax would do more to tax nere-do-wells than our current system.

Instead of simply pointing out that the OpinionJournal crew were treating Huckabee a bit harshly for his gaffe, and merely pointing out what I just did in the above paragraph, Boortz (who co-authored the Fair Tax books with congressman John Linder) went into full-fledged defense mode. He began engaging Taranto & Co. in a semantical argument, in his typical snarky, self-satisfied manner:

So I've picked out three statements from the Wall Street Journal editorial to answer. Here we go:

"But while proponents use that 23% figure as an easier political sell, the rate is closer to 30% when it's calculated like any other sales tax, with the levy on top of the price."

We really do hate to break it to the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal, but the simple fact of the matter is that the FairTax is not calculated like other sales taxes. The FairTax is included in the price, not added on top of the price. Perhaps the board would be less inclined to misstate the terms of the FairTax if they actually read the book or H.R. 25, but we're patient people, so we'll explain this one more time:

(a) Current state sales taxes: You look at the item on the shelf. The item is priced at $100.00. You take that item to the cashier. The cashier adds the state sales tax to the $100. If that sales tax is 7 percent, you pay $107, take your receipt and walk out.

(b) FairTax: You look at the item on the shelf. The item is priced at $100. You take the item to the cashier. The cashier asks you for $100. You pay your $100, take your receipt and walk out. You look at the receipt. The receipt tells you that 23 percent of the $100 you paid for that item is the FairTax and will be forwarded to the federal government. You call upon your years of education and quickly calculate that $23 is 23 percent of $100.

This is really quite embarrassing when you examine it for more than a few seconds. The two books can't possibly the same item. A book that retailed at $100 under the current system would not magically cost 23% less in the Fair Tax. Whether the cost is $100 on the sticker, or $100 at the register, the retailer is only getting $77 in revenue by selling the item at $100 with the Fair Tax. Before he was getting $100. That assumes that the retailer is willing to eat the entire cost of the Fair Tax himself (minus whatever the savings in supply-side cost in the production of the book promised by the Fair Tax). That's simply not going to happen. Anytime a sales tax is levied on a retail purchase, the burden in a normal supply/demand market is shared to some degree by consumer and retailer (with the government getting a share, and with a share being lost as dead-weight loss). This is basic economics. Things WILL cost more at the register under the Fair Tax.

But that shouldn't be a problem for the Fair Tax supporters. With Americans controlling all of their income, they have more incentive to save money (one of the stated benefits of the Fair Tax), and have more purchasing power. This is not to mention the "prebate" given to all citizens in the form of a cash payout with the intention of covering all necessities.

It may sound like I am firmly against the Fair Tax. I'm not. I'm not exactly for it at this point either, but it's worth consideration. But right now the two most public faces are out their making ridiculous and unsupportable claims about their own position. Boortz was rightly called out on his own kind of voodoo economics (a term much more applicable here than when disingenuously used by the original iffy-conservative Republican, George H.W. Bush). Just today I heard him questioning the intellectual capacities of the WSJ editorial board. All this after he falls for the Huckabee magic as easily as Jim Gilchrist did. It's just not looking too good for him these days.


With friends like Huckabee and Boortz, the federal consumption tax idea might ponder the need for enemies.

Huckabee Does Not Heart Federalism, Limited Government

Ouch! For all the talk of the Republicans learning their lesson after 7 years of breaking the bank and expanding federal government, the current star of the GOP Primary is... Mike Huckabee?

A scathing explanation of his past as a governor can be found here.

Some highlights:

On its annual governor's report card, Cato gave Huckabee an "F" for fiscal policy during his final term, and an overall two-term grade of "D." Only four governors had worse scores, and 15 Democratic governors got higher grades, including well-known liberals like Ted Kulongoski of Oregon, Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, and Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania.

But Huckabee doesn't just embrace big government in the form of big taxes. He truly appears to believe that if something is a good idea it should be a federal government program.

and

Under the Bush administration, the Republican Party has increasingly drifted away from its limited government roots. It has come to be dominated by a new breed of conservatives who believe in increasing the size, cost and power of government to achieve "conservative ends," even if that means limiting personal freedom in the process. Bush has brought us No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and a 23-percent increase in domestic discretionary spending, and Huckabee's been right there with him.

On election night in 2006, 55 percent of voters leaving the polls said they believed the Republican Party had become the party of big government. Mike Huckabee is doing his best to convert the other 45.

While there are candidate willing to take up the mantle of Barry Goldwater (Paul) and Ronald Reagan (Thompson, I guess), which was supposed to be the platform to get the Republicans back in power, everyone's darling is another W in the making. Thompson is floundering and Paul is still a longshot (even though I think his poll numbers are lower than reality because many likely voters don't show up as 'likely primary voters' by the pollsters' standards).

Huckabee knows how to pander and demagogue. I heard Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, telling Alan Handelman that he will be endorsing Huckabee because of his new immigration plan. Never mind that Huckabee was seen very recently as being an open-border fan.

And that's not the only instance of political opportunism. The consummate big-government conservative has endorsed the Fair Tax, garnering him praise from faux Libertarian radio talk show host Neal Boortz.

My only hope is that he'll split some votes amongst the other front runners, and maybe open a narrow window for Thompson or (yeah right) Paul.