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?



Wednesday, August 23, 2006

More Double Speak from the Left

According to a piece from Catholic Online, Ned Lamont (the Vietnam flower-child retread who defeated Joe Lieberman in the Dem primary in Connecticut) and the Left want to revive the concept of the "common good" for today's voters.

I couldn't agree more that this concept needs to be revived. But coming from a man who seeks to undermine his own country during wartime, it, um, rings hollow to say the least.

Of course, we have to understand that when the Left talks of the "common good," they mean what government says is good for you (government that the Left is in charge of, that is).

Their definition of "common good" is a Marxist grab bag of things like socialized medicine, sticking it to the rich, regulation of free businesses, and subjugation of human interests to environmental extremism.

You see, in the fantasy world of the Left, it is the liberals who are enamored with European socialism who are working for the "common good." It isn't traditional Americans who want to stick with the things that made our country the greatest and most free nation in the world. It's people who want to maintain America's greatness and goodness who are "divisive." Silly things like winning the war against barbaric terrorists, preserving marriage as a basic building block of a stable society, and protecting innocent lives aren't a part of the "common good" in the playbook of the Left.

It's incredible how prophetic George Orwell was in the visions he painted in his stories of how the Left loves to say one thing to mean the exact opposite (with Orwell, their deceptive talk was couched in "newspeak"). To the Left, American values are doubleplusungood crimethink.

Unsubstantiated Lies from the Pro-Abortion Left

A couple of the far-Left South Dakota blogs have been posting allegations the past few days that a polling company hired by the VoteYesForLife.com folks has ties to pornography.

I'm not into throwing up a smokescreen when there's a potential problem, even on my side of the political aisle, so I checked it out.

While I don't have all the time on my hands that these people apparently do, I was still unable to substantiate their claims--even with their own Google query strings (I think they may be using some liberal search engine called "Gaggle" or something).

Maybe I didn't dig deep enough, but I would think that my law enforcement and investigative experience, not to mention several years experience in internet technologies, would have made me capable of verifying these bold claims without going to "Oliver Stone" lengths.

I also checked with the VoteYesForLife.com folks yesterday; after all, it's hard to know everything about a company whose services you hire, so I wondered if maybe that was at the heart of the matter.

However, VoteYesForLife.com confirmed that they company they're using to poll South Dakota voters about support for the abortion ban isn't even any of the ones alleged by these fringe Leftists. And they also don't have any ties to pornography, as alleged.

C'mon folks. We can disagree about whether abortion kills a human being without stooping to unsubstantiated rumor-mongering. If you feel the need to try and smear the pro-life effort again, at least try to have some grain of truth in your allegation next time. This kind of gutter activity just makes you look worse than you already do in advocating the butchery of children.

Monday, August 21, 2006

Homosexuals Had Help Undermining Marriage

From AgapePress today on "Scholar Claims Heterosexual Attitudes Have Helped Gay Activists Undermine Marriage:"

Several pro-family advocates have noted that heterosexuals' increasingly casual attitudes about unwed pregnancy, unmarried cohabitation, marital infidelity and other sex outside marriage have helped to undermine the integrity of the traditional marriage and family, even as divorce has done. Many acknowledge that same-sex marriage activists did not invent the trend of compromising the biblical meaning and significance of marriage.

The article is absolutely right. Heterosexuals have had their part in undermining the sactity of marriage.

I would only add that because some people have damaged something, that doesn't mean we should allow others to damage it even more. It warrants everyone, especially heterosexuals, quit treating marriage with such a lackadaisical attitude and work to strengthen the basic foundation of order and the general welfare in our country.

Rape Exception, Evidence Optional

From a Sioux City Journal article dated 8/20:

But the ban's critics say such emergency contraception isn't widely available in South Dakota. They also say many rape and incest survivors don't report the crime at all -- let alone within the short time during which the drugs are effective. The U.S. Justice Department estimates less than 40 percent of rapes and sexual assaults are actually reported.

So we're supposed to allow women to kill their children just because they say they need to, with no evidence of a rape?

So we're saying it's vital that women have the right to have their unborn children ripped apart in their womb or chemically burned in their womb--and this is something they would seek out, yet wouldn't go to the police or hospital after being raped?

So we want to just flush away with emergency contraception the evidence of a brutal crime of rape or incest against a woman?

I guess that makes sense if you're desperate to keep the right to kill your unborn child.

Would that...

The Rapid City Journal featured a 1,900 word front page piece yesterday with 10 childhood pics and an oversized headline "Portrait of Elijah" (if memory serves, the headline the day after 911 wasn't that big). I'm wondering when they'll do a "Portrait of Chester Allan Poage," his victim.

They followed up the next day with a couple of features on “how sad” and depressed the murderer Page is.

The Argus also recently featured a big article featuring an interview with Gov Rounds which basically challenged his pro-life commitment with his refusal to grant clemency to the murderer Page, in addition to several other articles about "how rare" an execution at Page's age is, how "Page himself could stop this," and similar fare.

Would that South Dakota’s newspapers were as concerned over the 800 innocent children being butchered in the womb each year in South Dakota.

Would that South Dakota’s newspapers were as concerned over the millions of innocent children butchered in the womb since 1973.

Would that South Dakota’s newspapers had been so concerned over the state-sanctioned murder of a disabled woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo.

None of these children, nor Terri Schiavo, hurt anyone, yet South Dakota’s newspapers are pulling their hair out in the hopes of saving a man who tortured his own “friend” in a freezing streambed for several hours before brutally killing him so he could steal his “friend’s” property.

Is justice such an outmoded concept that we've sunk to this low?

If nothing else, I guess it’s nice to see South Dakota’s newspapers make it clear where their priorities lie…

Clicky Web Analytics