What am I talking about?  It seems that there is a video making its way around the internet that makes certain scary claims about Muslim demographics.  If this video is to be believed, Europe will be controlled by Muslims in 50 years and we’re next.  According to Moore and Mr. Champ the video is a call for some type of “ethnic cleansing” of Muslims.

To be fair, I’m not in a position to argue the veracity of the video’s claims; and I really don’t feel like doing the research.  However, I can testify that spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not “ethnic cleansing”.  And guess what?  That is precisely what action the video calls for.

If my buddy TwoSentz is going to allow this kind of garbage to be placed on his website, he has a definite right to do so.  However, I would suggest that he take down all of his supporting pictures and info about our mutual friend Jim Ireton.  I don’t think Jim can get re-elected with the key Muslim and radical atheist (apparently Mr. Champ’s pitch) vote.  Please, however, keep up all of the Frank Kratovil stuff.

Case in point – former House Minority Whip Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) candidacy to succeed Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO).  If Blunt is the type of candidate we’ll be running in 2010 I fully expect the Dems to trounce us again.

How can we expect the average voter to take us seriously if we are running guys who personify the reasons that the voters threw us out to begin with.  In his video Blunt says that we can’t “borrow and spend our way to prosperity”.  Guess what guys, Blunt was part of the leadership that turned the Congressional Republican majority from a bunch of fiscally responsible conservatives to a bunch of mealy-mouthed spendthrifts.

What’s next?  Tom DeLay for Senate?  How about John Boehner for President?  How about a new party?

If the Missouri GOP can’t find some young DA or state legislator to run, give the seat up before putting someone like Blunt into the Senate.  I know that Blunt comes from a politically powerful family, and is powerful in his own right.  However, if the NRSC or RNC is willing to throw conservative principles so far down a well then the wishful thinking of the left could just become a reality.

Think about it; it’s a great combo.  Rather than sitting at home freezing because you can’t afford to pay for your heating bill, you can get in line at the doctor’s office to wait six months for anything but the most mundane care.

My Red Maryland colleague Mark Newgent discusses attempts by the Obama administration to hide key facts from the public as the forced march towards cap and tax unfolds.  In Obama land “transparency” means “transparency … when it supports our policy goals”.

Estimated to cost a typical family $1,870 in 2020, the cost will rise to $6,800 per year by 2035.  That’s no problem for Frank.  He got a big pay bump when he was sworn in.

While Kratovil continues to stick his finger in the wind to decide how to vote, I fully expect him to vote yes in the end (or at least yes in reconciliation, if it gets that far).  Why not?  Frank needs to appease the enviro left to motivate turnout in 2010.  His messiah, Barack H. Obama is now calling it a “jobs bill” (remember all those jobs from “shovel ready” projects that Frank promised when he voted for Porkulus).  The bill won’t go into effect until 2012 (the messiah wants to be re-elected too).

Let Frank know how you feel.  I probably won’t do much good, but at least you can’t say that you didn’t try.  Ask Frank if he’ll be picking up the cost of your soon to be increased power bill.

BTW – try the local offices first.  The DC switchboard seems to be melting at post time.

My concern doesn’t lie with criticizing Sanford, although I feel for his family.  No, my concern is with the author’s analysis of the speakers at the summit.  Riddled with inaccuracy, Mr. Champ’s work shows a complete disdain for individuals who believe that certain societal values are necessary for the success of a civil society.  People like Mr. Champ denounces free markets as being laissez faire (there is a distinct difference between a free market and ordered liberty versus a complete lack of regulation) while attacking those who don’t believe in a laissez faire morality.  Regardless, people like Mr. Champ have a right to their opinion; it should, however, be an informed one.  The author clearly doesn’t understand who or what he is criticizing.  He just knows that he doesn’t like it.

Sure, some of the speakers at the VVS are toads.  Personnally, I’ve never been a huge fan of Pat Buchanan.  However, participating in a conference advocating that English be made our country’s official language is hardly the same as conspiring to bomb an army post (like President Obama’s buddy Bill Ayres did).  A lot of us believe that it’s not a bad idea.  While I understand the problems of time and space constraints, claiming that Buchanan is affiliated with a “WHITE NATIONALIST” requires a little backup.  Wouldn’t you think?

I particularly loved Mr. Champs’s portrayal of Mark Levin as a neocon.  Levin may be many things, but he certainly is not a neo-conservative.  If Mr. Champs had bothered to even thumb through a copy of Levin’s latest book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, at the Barnes & Noble (much less actually read it) he would know that Levin has as much love for neocons and former president George W. Bush as he does.

To call Family Research Council president Tony Perkins a racist is easy.  Where’s your proof?  Can’t stand Don Wildmon?  Fine.  Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh?  Ditto.

There’s just one problem guys.  You can’t whine about a lack of civility in our public discourse while you use a grain of truth, or outright falsehood, to attack the character of those you disagree with.  Admittedly, people like Sanford and Gingrich make themselves targets if they run as pro-family and then are proven to be less so.  Unfortunately, you’re playing the same game, just on a different pitch.

How did I?  Twitter.  One of the good people I follow on Twitter made mention of the post.  Social media like Twitter can be a great tool for political organizing – both in Iran … and on the Delmarva peninsula.

Why then would my friend Joe Albero insist on going postal because he isn’t receiving the ranking he believes that he deserves on BNN’s Delmarva and Maryland “Influence Indices”?  I don’t know.  I probably wouldn’t care except that one – I have a relationship with BNN as the Delmarva editor, and two – the argument made in Albero’s argument is faulty to the point of sounding as if it was written by Joe’s pal Jonathan Taylor.

Albero argues that his drop in rankings has something to do with an ersatz feud with my counterpart on the BNN – Maryland feed.  This is ridiculous on its face.  As a feed editor, we have the ability to add sites and remove them – that’s it.  While doing our job as an editor we also have the ability to designate whether a site being listed displays a BNN badge or not.  It is my understanding that this can influence where a blog is listed on the right side of the screen (that feed’s master blogroll), any effect on a site’s ranking on the infamous “Influence Index” is either non-existent or minimal.  The Maryland editor could drop Salisbury News entirely off the feed, but they can’t influence its ranking much, if any, while it is on the feed.

Dave Mastio has never seen fit to share everything that goes into the “Influence Index” algorithim.  It’s proprietary and I wouldn’t expect him to.  However, I’ve done a little experimenting on my own and I think that I have a partial handle on how it works.  I’ve even explained my take on this to Joe.  Unfortunately, my friend tends to allow little things to needlessly get his goat.

Now, if Joe believes he has a gripe that’s fine.  As a site owner he has a right to attack whomever he chooses.  What I don’t appreciate is Joe, or anyone else, attacking someone without evidence or argument.  Again, it starts to sound like Jonathan Taylor (which is one of the reasons he was excluded from the BNN – Delmarva feed).

BNN doesn’t claim to be “influential”.  It publishes a weekly “Influence Index”.  That’s a title, not a claim.  Maybe Dave likes assonance like I have an affinity for alliteration.  It is not a popularity contest.  As I stated earlier, I only have an opinion as to what it is based on.  I believe that it is derived at using a variety of factors including audience size (as measured by Alexa, Compete, and Quantcast), number (and possibly quality) of external links, number of people rating the site, and (probably most important) number of people going to a site’s post via BNN.  I am also confident that there are other factors.

I may be wrong.  However, if I am correct then this could explain a lot.  Salisbury News is heavily deficient in the external links department (compared to other sites with a much smaller audience).  I have no way of knowing how many readers come to a post via BNN.  However, I am willing to bet that it is much smaller than Joe believes.  This leaves audience size and number of ratings.  Audience size as ranked by the three primary services is what it is.  But again, I know that the “Influence Index” is not a pure popularity contest.  If it was, many blogs that are ranked would never show up.  As for the number of people ranking a post on Joe’s site, or any other, only BNN’s computers know for sure.

Joe may have a gripe against a site like the Carroll Standard.  However, I would be carefuld about screaming copyright infringement; you know the old adage about the pot calling the kettle black.  Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with BNN.  RSS (and Atom) feeds are for public consumption.  As long as atribution is given to the source (Delmarva Dealings, Salisbury News, etc.) BNN has no liability.  Joe can request that the Carroll Standard be dropped from the BNN – Maryland feed.  The editor has no obligation to comply.  He can request that Salisbury News be dropped from the Delmarva, Maryland, and Delaware feeds.  Again, the editors have no obligation to comply.  He can try to block his Atom feed on Blogger, but that’s cutting off the proverbial nose.

In the end, my friendly advice is to quit worrying about things like this.

Of course, few Democrat elected officials are as honest as Cardin.  Kratovil espouses an “individual mandate”.  So does Obama.  What will be the end result?  SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

Check out Patients United to learn more.  We certainly won’t be getting much info from a media so infatuated with Obama that they are simply laying down all pretense of objectivity and broadcasting infomercials.

Contrary to the claims of the Daily Times, the real purpose behind moving the elections back to spring was not some half-hearted attempt to drive voter turnout.  Only imbeciles buy into an argument that a spring election, following a winter campaign, increases turnout.  Simply look at the turnout numbers from the last city election held in November to see.  Then research other areas that have done the same.  Spring elections depress turnout.  Former mayor Barrie Tilghman was masterful in her drive move the elections.  The city didn’t want to comply with federal and state deadlines.  They moved to non-partisan elections.  The Wicomico County Board of Elections had problems with the Tilghman-imposed scheme.  Therefore, Tilghman had ample excueses to move the elections to spring.  Depressed turnout worked in her favor, until her opponents learned how to target voters.

Mr. Boda calls for a city election to occur at the same time as the federal and state cycle.  The Daily Times implies much the same.  There are advantages to such a move.  However there are myriad problems with such a move, not the least of which is cost.

Beginning in 2010, we will be going back to optical scan ballots.  Since many precincts in Salisbury encompass not only Salisbury but unincorporated portions of the county, and because Salisbury holds non-partisan elections, three sets of ballots would have to be printed for each split prencict for the primary and two sets for the general election.  There is also the high probability of confusion and possibility of fraud in precincts where county residents are not entitled to vote in city elections or if city voters are not permitted to vote in the Salisbury races.

Another problem will occur if Maryland chooses to hold an early primary again in 2012.  In addition, city deadlines will have to be in sync with the state and federal filing deadlines.  A simple phone call by either the Daily Times or Boda to the Wicomico County Board of Elections would have shown the problems with this scheme.

The Daily Times argues that the most pressing reason for having November elections is because of the Salisbury budget process.  Such a move would eliminate the possibility of an outgoing mayor using the budget as a tool for political retribution as we saw Tilghman do this year.  This is a very strong argument, in and of itself.  Coupled with the other benefits of a November election, Mayor Jim Ireton and the Salisbury council should definitely consider such a move.

However, such a move should be to November of odd numbered years.  This would eliminate the problems mentioned above.  In addition, they should also consider allowing District 1 voters to vote at Harvest Baptist Church, along with the west side polling place (assuming Harvest remains a polling place).  Given that a majority of east side District 1 voters are literally a stone’s throw from Harvest Baptist, District 1 turnout could grow immensely.

To accomplish this, both branches of city government would have to agree on extending the terms of the mayor and all council members by approximately seven months.  While my views on the current council majority are well known, I believe that this is a small price to pay to eliminate the possibility of another budget fiasco (despite my belief that a Mayor Ireton would never engage in such behavior) and possibly increase voter turnout in the city.