Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Saturday, January 20, 2007

James Abourezk Rubs Shoulders with Communists

The latest column from Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media, is about "The Communist-influenced "Media Reform" Movement."

He tells us about the latest media Bush-bashing fest:

Having previously reported on the participation of Revolutionary Communist Party members at the “National Conference on Media Reform,” I can now confirm that members of the old Soviet-line Communist Party USA were there, too.

One of the commies, Teresa Albano, tells a good one: "...targeting the big corporate and right-wing interests that have taken over the news and other sources of information." Now that I've picked myself up off the floor from laughing so hard, I wonder how this lunatic gets "taken over the news" from Fox News, talk radio and a few blogs. I guess ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, et al just don't count, huh?

One of the things this Pravda-like bunch is selling is a re-institution of the (un)Fairness Doctrine which used to muzzle conservatives from getting their message out in the liberal dominated media.

South Dakota's own Jim Abourezk is hanging out with good company these days (actually, I don't think it's changed much):

...a National Press Club news conference sponsored by the “World Can’t Wait” coalition, which wants President Bush and his “regime” removed from office. Interestingly, Taylor serves on the advisory board of the coalition. Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, notes that, “Some of the founders of World Can’t Wait are public supporters” of the RCP and cites Sunsara Taylor as one example. This would appear to lend credence to the suspicion that World Can’t Wait is nothing but a front organization of the RCP.

Other members of the World Can’t Wait advisory board are James Abourezk, former U.S. Senator, South Dakota; Rosemary Candelario, pro-abortion activist; Warren Hern MD, physician and pro-abortion activist; Mark Leno, California State Assembly; Mark Crispin Miller, professor & writer; Tomas Olmos, attorney; Boots Riley, hip hop performer; Lynne Stewart, attorney; Gore Vidal, writer; and Howard Zinn, historian.

Stewart, of course, is the attorney convicted of aiding an Islamic terrorist group.

Other speakers at the January 4 press conference included Cindy Sheehan and John Nichols, a writer for The Nation and co-founder of Free Press, the sponsor of the media reform conference.

Friday, January 19, 2007

Sexual Responsibility Not Just for Bible Thumpers

It seems sexual responsibility isn't just for unmarried Bible thumpers.

The Chicago Sun-Times features an article from two days ago entitled "No sex, thanks: In our erotically superheated society, celebs, and people next door, are reclaiming chastity."

Some interesting excerpts:

Michele, 39, a divorced mother of two, has been celibate for six months. She broke up with the man she loved because he "didn't want to be accountable." She decided: "Not only do you not deserve my body, you don't deserve my time."


Some celebs have spoken publicly about keeping their pants on. Kirstie Alley told Oprah she was celibate for 4½ years; singer Pink wore white to her wedding after a celibate engagement; Weezer frontman Rivers Cuomo eclipsed his two-year celibacy pledge by six months before getting engaged a year ago and married last May.


"We talk about 'secondary virginity,' but usually we just say 'starting over,' " said Cori Moschberger, executive director of Caris Services, a 10-year-old abstinence education program serving 37 local public schools. "No matter what you did in the past, you can always make a decision to be abstinent until marriage."


"I feel my decision to be sexually involved with my husband before marriage blinded me to character issues, created a false sense of intimacy and distracted us from building an honest friendship," she said. They were married nearly five years. After the breakup, her decision was to practice abstinence.

"He was the only person I had sex with, he was my first, there were no pregnancies, no STDs [sexually transmitted diseases], but the consequences were much greater than they would have been if we'd waited," she said.


"Sure, I have been tempted to give it up," she said, "but I have to realize that if the man isn't willing to wait for me until I am ready, then he is not worthy of having me. The man who is willing to wait until he places a diamond on my left ring finger is the right man for me."


As a teenager, Gonzalez said, casual sex caused "a lot of negative consequences in my life, broken relationships, objectifying women and using them for my own purposes." Instead of intimacy, sex brought "more brokenness." When he became a Christian, he vowed no sex until marriage.

Contempt for Responsibility

The CHADs are on the warpath against sexual responsibility again. I debated on whether to even acknowledge their silliness, but I guess in the end the temptation was just too great.

There was nothing in the integrity ball which absolved young men of their duty to responsibility, either in what was included in my article or what wasn't included. While I tried to include a comprehensive report of what was said, there's no way I could have included everything.

I'm just guessing here, but I think the reason why much of the encouragement to the young men was made as it was is because of the psychology of males. (I know the ubersexualists at CHAD probably disagree, but males and females actually do think and relate differently.) Males tend to think of themselves as bulletproof, so an appeal to the male to safeguard the welfare of others is more likely to be effective than to tell him that sex outside of marriage is just as harmful to him--after all, he thinks he's invulnerable). A wise teacher tailors his message for his audience (Jesus was the perfect example of this technique).

The CHADs seem to get some idea that Christians approve of having sex if it's with girls outside of their religion ("It says that women who are not virgins or not of their version of religion are exempt and therefore fair game.") ??? I guess if you operate outside the bounds of reality in the first place, there are no limits to the ideas you can manufacture ex nihilo.

Another example: "This kind of mentality encourages rape, abuse and sexual harassment." How you get that out of an event designed from start to finish to instill respect for women is beyond me. But then, see my last paragraph for a possible explanation.

Though the hyper-feminists at CHAD accuse Christians of the same, it is actually they who are obsessed with the concept of women as property (maybe it's an inferiority complex or something--I don't know). Real men, real Christian men, respect women as being of equal value in God's eyes, realize the value of a good woman as their life partner (Pastor Baker even said as much, warning young men if they failed to value the counsel of their future wives). They are so insecure about the strength and value of women that they transfer their own insecurities onto those they perceive as enemies. Sad that they fear those who respect women the most.

But if complete sexual autonomy is your ultimate goal, as it appears to be for the CHADs, you can't have silly things like rules, guidelines, boundaries, responsibility and mutual respect getting in your way.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Senate Passes "Ethics" Bill, Sans Grass Roots Restrictions

According to a Fox News report, tonight the Senate passed their controversial "ethics" bill, though without the much-feared (by both liberals and conservatives) restriction on grass-roots lobbying:

The Senate, on a 55-43 vote, approved an amendment pushed by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, to strip a provision requiring reporting of "grass-roots" lobbying.

Backers said it would shine light on special interest groups that use "hired guns" to organize mass mailings, phone-ins or e-mail campaigns. Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union and conservative groups such as the Traditional Values Coalition, argued that it was a free speech issue, discouraging people or groups from organizing petition drives.

Had that provision passed, it would have been yet another serious erosion of the First Amendment, which already took a huge hit with the McCain-Feingold (aka Incumbent Protection) Act a few years ago.

We shouldn't rest easy, though. They might not have got it this time, but liberals and the power-hungry (regardless of whether a D or R follows their name) will undoubtedly try again to silence their critics.

The Death Penalty

Mark Creech's latest column examines "A Christian Response to Death Penalty Issues."

An astute analysis of the current state of the use of the death penalty in our country today:

...death-row inmates receive super due process of law that accounts for an average of 12 years of appeals, and...there exists no solid evidence of even one innocent nationwide being executed in over a hundred years

On the subject of those who like to twist the Scriptures to mean things they were never meant to say (you can confirm this contextually), Creech brings out an excellent point that I've never heard expressed before:

While anti-death penalty proponents from the faith community like Shirley Burns push for abolition and a moratorium on capital punishment in North Carolina, calling for citizens to forgive, they seem to forget that the persons with the greatest reason to forgive cannot because they've been murdered.

As one of the foundational characteristics of justice is the attempt to balance the scales for the person who has been wronged, Creech speaks to this as well:

Moreover, family members like Janice Hunter, whose 27-year-old daughter, Adrien, was brutally stabbed to death by serial killer Nathaniel White, can easily identify with her statement: "I have to go to the cemetery to see my daughter. Nathaniel White' s mother goes to jail to see him and I don't think it's fair."

To even think that capital punishment is "cruel and unusual" or anything of the like is utter nonsense. Cruel and unusual? It's as close as our imperfect society can get to balancing the scales of justice for the wronged--the victim and his/her family. Cruel and unusual is what we do to the loved ones of the victim when we prolong their agony by pussy-footing around justice.

Finally, he addresses this commonly heard statement that sounds so noble but is in essence completely asinine:

One final quote by William H. Baker best addresses the main concerns of abolitionists and moratorium advocates: "Some claim it would be better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to die. Such an ethic must assume that the failure to apply justice is better than the misapplication of justice. Must we be faced with a choice of equal evil over against equal injustice? The issue is that anything less than death is not the full measure of justice; thus, anything less than death is an injustice.

Explaining Liberalism

The National Center for Policy Analysis released a report today on "Our Civic Ignorance: A Stunning Failure to Educate."

It cites a study done by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute by the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy which found that most people don't have a clue when it comes to American history or the U.S. Constitution.

This report goes a long way in explaining the liberalism in our culture today.

Get Ready for Global Cooling

On the same day as the story about the Weather Channel nut-job who said said global warming meteorologist "heretics" who don't march in lockstep with the myth of global warming should be decertified, we have the story from the National Post of Canada about how, gee, this global warming thing isn't really settled after all (kinda like evolution, huh).

Nigel Weiss, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, and past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, says global warming is "anything but settled" and that the planet is about to enter a period of cooling.

It goes back to the science that many socialists have tried to suppress, that the earth has been going through cycles of warming and cooling for hundreds or thousands of years.

Typically, sunspots flare up and settle down in cycles of about 11 years. In the last 50 years, we haven't been living in typical times: "If you look back into the sun's past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity," Dr. Weiss states.

These hyperactive periods do not last long, "perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash," says Dr. Weiss. 'It's a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon."

In addition to the 11-year cycle, sunspots almost entirely "crash," or die out, every 200 years or so as solar activity diminishes. When the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically. Dr. Weiss knows because these phenomenon, known as "Grand minima," have recurred over the past 10,000 years, if not longer.

Next comes perhaps the most interesting part (what you may have already heard, if you were listening, but not if you were waiting for the dominant media to pass it along to you):

"The deeper the crash, the longer it will last," Dr. Weiss explains. In the 17th century, sunspots almost completely disappeared for 70 years. That was the coldest interval of the Little Ice Age, when New York Harbour froze, allowing walkers to journey from Manhattan to Staten Island, and when Viking colonies abandoned Greenland, a once verdant land that became tundra. Also in the Little Ice Age, Finland lost one-third of its population, Iceland half.

The previous cooling period lasted 150 years while a minor crash at the beginning of the 19th century was accompanied by a cooling period that lasted only 30 years.

In contrast, when the sun is very active, such as the period we're now in, the Earth can warm dramatically. This was the case during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings first colonized Greenland and when Britain was wine-growing country.

The article does go ahead on page 2 to provide a pacifier to those who insist on still believing in this man-made global warming myth, telling them that hey, if global warming is real, the man-made variety can help offset this natural cooling cycle.

Who says there's no comfort in fantasy?

On The Ten Commandments of Charity

One of my favorite columnists, Dr. Mike S. Adams, has a great piece today on charity. I knew it was off to a good start when he said this, referencing his column yesterday:

Those who wrote to tell me they are superior Christians because they don’t judge people (like I do) are unworthy of a rebuttal. They are free to continue to purchase alcohol and crack for the unemployed and to do it all in the name of Jesus.

He goes on to provide some excellent guidance on charity, such as commandment #5:

The Fair Tax is our nation’s best potential engine for charity growth. Those who make wisecracks about compassionate conservatism being an oxymoron generally believe in “compelled charity,” which is the true oxymoron. Nancy Pelosi and her followers are the most uncompassionate and uncharitable people in America. They want the IRS to collect our “charity” at the point of a gun. But charity, once compelled, ceases to be charity. If we want to see an explosion of charitable giving in America, we must abolish the IRS. The Fair Tax (see www.Boortz.com) is our only realistic hope.

Commandment six is good, too:

Volunteer first, contribute second. It is always better to give to a charity with which you are familiar. There is no better way to learn about an organization than by volunteering for that organization. Give your time first, and your money second.

Dr. Adams' parting thoughts are no less true and instructive than the "ten commandments" themselves:

Or just ignore these commandments, take the easy way out, and throw a quarter at the next panhandler you see at Wal-Mart. It’s almost as easy as letting the IRS handle your charity for you.

Now here is a man who understands true charity...and the difference between it and the charade of government wealth redistribution that liberals like to call "charity" and "compassion."

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Others Question HPV Vaccination, Too

The HPV vaccination discussion isn't just confined to South Dakota. Terence Jeffrey, editor of Human Events, has a column on TownHall.com today on the subject.

Several states, as well as the District of Columbia, are now contemplating legislation that would mandate these injections for girls enrolling in 6th grade. The Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal, recently editorialized that the injections ought to be mandated for boys, as well.

The only questions are: Should people be forced to take them? Who should bear the cost?

Ultimately, any mandate for a venereal-disease vaccine is aimed at socializing the risk of promiscuous sexual behavior. It is about using the power of government to make all of the people bear some of the cost created by the reckless behavior of some of the people.

His column says that the FDA found some adverse affects in some tests involving placebos, such as fever, nausea, dizziness, diarrhea and vomiting. Parents should consider these and the potential for long-ranging side effects about which we know nothing at this stage.

For social conservatives such as myself, here is what we believe is the ultimate motivation of such a vaccination hype:

Advocates of universal vaccination against venereal diseases realize that traditional cultural values are an obstacle to creating their sought-after, if never attainable, Utopia where people can engage in promiscuous sex without fear of consequence.

After all, why such massive insistence on widespread, taxpayer-funded vaccination against a disease you won't get if you behave morally?

It doesn't matter whether it's pushed by by a Democrat or a Republican. The motivation behind the HPV vaccination craze from the top down is disturbing. And I think Jeffrey nails what that motivation is really about.

Others Question Preschool Plan

Seems it isn't just us Right-wing nut jobs that are questioning this preschool plan.

The Mitchell Daily Republic features the op/ed "Questioning pre-K program" today.

First, the cost for the program is expected to be about $1.5 million, half of which would be paid for by the state. If the program was to be expanded, as the governor hopes, what would costs be then, and who would pay?

Second, the ramifications of the state dabbling in preschool education make us wonder what it could lead to. Could forced attendance of preschool or kindergarten — which is not required in this state — be on the horizon?

Of course, they're in the same town as my fellow Right-wing blogger Sibby, so I'm sure he's just contaminated them. ;-)

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

The Marketing of Abortion Exposed

After I got over my crying jag at the hands of the mean ole Coat Hangers (boo hoo, sniffle sniffle), I took part in a conference call tonight featuring author David Kupelian who wrote the best-seller "The Marketing of Evil."

Tonight's call dealt specifically with how abortion was successfully marketed to mainstream America through outright, brazen lies.

You can read highlights of the call here.

Wrath of the CHADs

Now I've upset the CHADs who believe anyone who doesn't march in lockstep obedience to the education establishment is wearing a tin hat. It's amazing sometimes how the presentation of a different point of view is branded as "narrow thinking" by the socialist drones on the Left.

There isn't time to address all of the CHAD drones protests against criticism of their government-god, but I will take time to say that Cindy Flakoll did include footnotes with the piece she submitted for publication. I didn't include them because, while they were informative, they were rather lengthy and most of the time, footnotes aren't listed in a column format. I will list them here, though, in the hopes it will make the CHADs feel better; I'll even put them on the end of the article later, if I get time.

As for the petition I signed several years ago at the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, is Cindy's name listed on that petition? That would be the best way to tell if she supports it, rather than trying to undermine what she said by innuendo and association.

(As a sidenote, some others who agree with the Alliance for the Separation of School and State are Dr. D. James Kennedy, Dr. Tim LaHaye, Rep. Ron Paul, Joel Belz, Gary DeMar, David Boaz, Marvin Olasky, R.C. Sproul, Dinesh D'Souza, Larry Elder, and Joseph Farah among many, many others. You may disagree with them, but you can't be intellectually honest and dismiss anyone who agrees with the Alliance as a provincial kook.)

In summary, the CHADs are good at pooh-poohing anything that doesn't fit their narrow socialist utopian vision, but they didn't invalidate anything Cindy said. I enjoy reading the CHADs because you seldom see such hysterical Leftist dedication here in South Dakota. And just as I sometimes enjoy a good smash-em-up action flick, I confess to a certain amusement in watching the CHADs make a train-wreck of all intellectual, rational and moral coherency.

For them to respond so virulently to a voice of dissent on this nanny-state plan must mean that it truly is a bad idea. Anything the CHADs are for, it's a pretty safe bet it's bad for people.

Instead of trying so hard to undermine parents and parenting, I wonder why the CHADs don't work to make things better for children instead of sending them off to taxpayer-subsidized daycare that scuttles any traditional values their parents might hope to pass on to them.


[1] “Parker wrestler indicted in rapes,” Argus Leader, August 22, 2006 http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060822/NEWS05/608220306&SearchID=73254652382054

[2] Rolnick, Art and Gruenwald, Rob, “Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a High Public Return,” March 2003, http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-03/earlychild.cfm

[3] “Economy & Early Childhood Education,” 05/15/2006 http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.cfm?Id=25,48058

[4] Hooks, Kathryn, “Congress Spends Billions on Bad Parental Substitute: Studies Show Link Between Early Childcare Centers and Aggressive Behavior,” 7/29/2003, http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=4370&department=BLI&categoryid=dotcommentary

[5] Ibid.

[6] Peterson, Kavan, “Preschool gets record boost in '05,” November 16, 2005, http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=68296

[7] “State-Funded Preschool Programs Serving More Children, But Spending Less Per Child: Growth in Quality of Programs Lags,” Mar 23, 2006, http://nieer.org/mediacenter/index.php?PressID=52

[8] “Annual Survey Finds High-Quality State Preschool Programs Are the Exception, Not the Rule Preschool Enrollment Increased Nationally, Spending Per Child Dropped,” Nov 22, 2004, http://nieer.org/mediacenter/index.php?PressID=43

[9] http://nieer.org/mediacenter/index.php?PressID=52

[10] http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060607/a_primaries07.art.htm, 6-7-06

[11] “AB 172 Preschool for All Talking Points,” Updated 4/05
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/AB172%20Talking%20Points.pdf, --accessed 6-20-06

[12] Morse, Anne, “Do You Know Where Your Children Are?” Book Review of Day Care Deception: What the Child Care Establishment Isn’t Telling Us, Brian C. Robertson, Encounter Books, http://www.crisismagazine.com/book3.htm

[13] Lopez, Kathryn J., “Who’s Minding the Kids? Opening the day-care-center doors,” October 01, 2003, http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/robinson200310010847.asp

[14] Ibid.

[15] Halle, Tamara, “Child Trends - Society for Research in Child Development,”April 9, 2005 http://www.childtrends.org/Files/SRCD_presentation_March_2005_4-09-05.pdf

[16] Day Care Deception: What the Child Care Establishment Isn't Telling Us --- Book Review --accessed 8-23-06, http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/daca/daca.html

Preschool Initiative May Be a Trojan Horse

Cindy Flakoll of Concerned Women for America - SD has the first of a series of articles on preschool as it relates to the "universal" preschool idea being tossed about in South Dakota right now.

While it's being hailed as a wonderful thing by the usual suspects, Cindy points out there are some serious considerations with such a plan (child aggression, etc.). She also gives some insight into the motives of some of those who most strongly advocate taking children away from their parents at a young age and placing them in the care of the nanny state.

Read the first installment from the homepage of Dakota Voice.

Monday, January 15, 2007

"24:" Terminating the Bad Guys with Extreme Prejudice

Did you see the season premier of "24" on Fox last night? Absolutely awesome! If you're disturbed by violence, I wouldn't recommend you watch, though, and definitely don't let your young children watch it.

I've been a 24 fan since the first season, when I tuned in the first time because I've long been a Kiefer Sutherland fan, and I was intrigued by the new concept of a show that covered one hour--real-time--of a 24-hour period in each episode. Though I've seen a lot of action shows over the years, this show does to me what few can: it keeps me riveted to the TV and my stomach in a knot for the whole hour.

My wife occasionally gives me grief because of some of the unrealistic aspects of 24, such as the fact that the characters keep going 100 MPH even thought they've had no sleep for a day or two, not to mention that Los Angeles and the US typically get saved countless times during that 24 hour period. I tell my party-pooping wife that I just turn off the logical center of my brain for an hour, sit back and enjoy the fun! (Having had some law enforcement and counterterrorism training in my youth, I can say that a lot of it is realistic, though). Besides, so much action, twists and surprises come at you so fast during that hour, that you hardly have time to worry about how unrealistic parts of it are.

The show can also be annoying sometimes with all the petty backbiting and whining done by some of the CTU (Counter Terrorism Unit) office personnel; they act like a bunch of spoiled rich kids from 90210 sometimes.

But out in the field, Jack Bauer can always be counted on to kick major and countless terrorist butt! Though sometimes he crosses the line to disturbing degrees, one thing I like about the character is that he understands that sometimes you have to get a little rough to protect the country and the people who live here.

The Jack Bauer character understands dedication and devotion to the mission, and he understands loyalty, which he gives completely if you've earned it. He also understands sacrifice, and is willing to go the whole distance if that's what it takes to get the job done.

There's no trying to understand why the terrorists hate us so from Jack Bauer. There's no worrying about the latest Supreme Court decision on whether you can tickle a terrorist with a feather. There's no quibbling about what a bunch of pansies from "human rights" organizations are going to think. He just gets about the sometimes dirty business of protecting the country and stopping the bad guys.

Rush Limbaugh said last week (he got to pre-screen the first 4 episodes of the new season) that this season would go places we've never gone before, and each episode would leave you going, "Man, I don't believe they did that!!!" And he was right.

That has always been one of the most interesting things about 24--you never know what they're going to do. It's completely unpredictable, from the character interactions all the way to the major and minor plot twists. Things that you think will be a major development end up going nowhere. And things that you didn't expect suddenly dominate the story. And no character is sacred (except maybe Jack Bauer). I think Jack is the only character remaining from the original season; they killed off the last two original characters last season--one of them in the first 15 minutes of the season. And there are hints that Jack may not last through this season.

So if you're not a "girly man"--and you're old enough to handle it--consider tuning in tonight for the second two hours of the season. It's not too late to catch up.

Integrity Ball Encourages Young Men to Raise the Standard

My report on the Northern Hills Integrity ball is now available at www.dakotavoice.com.

The folks at the Northern Hills Pregnancy Care Center and “Stop and Think” should be commended for their efforts to help young people make the right decisions for healthy, productive lives.

After all, people aren't just a bunch of animals that can't control their urges.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Integrity Ball

I went to the First Annual Northern Hills Integrity Ball last night in Spearfish. This event is modeled somewhat after the purity balls that many of you have already heard about.

While the purity ball is for fathers and daughters, the integrity ball is for mothers and sons. The sons get to take their mothers out for an evening of fine dining and fun, while reinforcing that young men should remain abstinent until marriage. The evening was coat and tie minimum, so it wasn't slouchy at all, but was very classy.

After the dinner, a young woman spoke about her experiences with abstinence, then Pastor Luke Baker, Youth Pastor at South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City, spoke, and then attenders were treated to a "clean" comedian from Wyoming. Mothers and sons also got to dance before the evening ended.

I'll be posting an article in much greater detail later today or possibly tomorrow morning about the event.

Many of the young men there last night will prove, despite what liberals say, that it's possible to, as Pastor Baker put it, "separate yourself from the animal kingdom" (more on that later).

Clicky Web Analytics