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?



Thursday, September 14, 2006

Pro-Abortionists Consider Children a Threat

The Left wing extremists in the South Dakota blogosphere are all up in arms over a child in a Cat in the Hat suit at the press conference put on yesterday by South Dakota (Un)Healthy Families.

The child was handing out fliers that show respect for human life, and when asked why he was there, he said, “A person is a person no matter how small”—a line from Dr. Seuss.

So apparently children are now considered a menacing threat to the pro-abortionists.

Oh, I forgot: children already have been a menace to them. Otherwise, why would they be so eager to kill them before they can get out of their mother’s womb?

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Charity: Whose Job Is it?

Dr. Walter Williams has another good column out today which examines Constitution Day which is coming up on Sept. 17. A good thing right? Good except for the hypocrisy of many who passed the bill creating the official day:

Let's examine just a few statements by the framers to see just how much faith and allegiance today's Americans give to the U.S. Constitution. James Madison is the acknowledged father of the Constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief for French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo (now Haiti) to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison said disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Today, at least two-thirds of a $2.5 trillion federal budget is spent on "objects of benevolence." That includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, aid to higher education, farm and business subsidies, welfare, etc., ad nauseam.

But Madison wasn't the only leader who recognized that charity falls within the purview of the private, not the government:
Some presidents had similar constitutional respect. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve the measure "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
What, then, the socialist might ask, IS the proper role of government? Dr. Williams answers this by quoting the Federalist Papers:
James Madison explained the constitutional limits on federal power in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined ... [to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."
What's so hard to understand about that?

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Communist Abortionists?

The South Dakota War College has a post about Planned Parenthood Potlucks.

I have to agree with a "What's that all about???" I seem to recall a story about the cannibalistic abortionist Krishna Rajanna a year or two ago, but surely this is unrelated.

Something struck me as extremely odd, though, as I read through their abortion party literature.

The hungry hand holding the fork in their abortion invitation flier looked awful familiar to me, especially as a veteran warrior of the Cold War. Sure enough, it bears a strong resemblance to the fist which so often adorns communist literature.

Surely America's leading abortion provider isn't in league with communism, the ideology responsible for 100 million deaths in the 20th century. After all, there have only been about 47 million abortions in the United States, so they have a ways to go before they can stand tall next to the communists.

Monday, September 11, 2006

More Pot Calling the Kettle Black

If you haven't already done so, you should check out the new "Constitutionally Correct" blog from the Alliance Defense Fund. ADF is the legal group that protects Christians from the usurpation of their First Amendment rights which is becoming more common these days.

The latest post is about how the Left is once again trying to confuse people by accusing people who are acting properly of the bad things being done on the Left.

This post talks about how the Left is trying to hijack the term "judicial activism" which people on the Right have long accused liberal judges of resorting to.

Judicial activism is when a judge makes up a law that doesn't exist, or ignores one that does, on the flimsy pretense that his position conforms to the Constitution--usually a tortured interpretation at best, and definitely not in keeping with the philosophy of those who wrote the laws or Constitution.

Basically, what the Left's definition of "judicial activism" amounts to is sticking to what the Constitution was intended to mean, or requiring that the government remain within it's constitutionally mandated boundaries--things which are simply unacceptable to liberals.

When people start realizing the deceptive agenda of the Left, you can always bet on liberals accusing others of what they've already been doing.

Recycling the Same Old Fear

Pro-abortionists are recycling the same old fear-mongering files.

The Argus Leader wheels out the same old scare tactics they've been trying for the past year:

“The taxpayers are going to pay for it if this goes to court, and you’d better remember that,’’ Billion said.
To put the estimated cost of defending the abortion ban against a lawsuit from pro-abortion extremists, it would cost about as much as one mile of interstate highway in South Dakota. And if you drive around very much, how often are we repaving miles of interstate in our state?

A fund has been established to accept private donations to defend the abortion ban against any challenges brought by pro-abortion extremists, which was actually a gracious gesture on the part of the legislature since defending the law with taxpayer funds is completely legitimate. After all, anytime Left-wing extremists file lawsuits, taxpayers have to foot the bill.

One key thing to remember: the same people bellyaching about how much money it may cost to defend the abortion ban against a legal challenge ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WOULD LAUNCH A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE ABORTION BAN!

How's that for a self-fulfilling prophecy, not to mention a big fat dose of hypocrisy? The people complaining about the cost to taxpayers are the ones who would cause that cost in the first place? Kind of like criminals bellyaching about crime in the neighborhood, or vandals destroying school property and then complaining about the high cost of education.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Children Conceived of Rape Testify to Life's Value

Sibby has a report from the South Dakota Right to Life convention held in Sioux Falls this weekend.

Of particular interest was the testimony of several people who were conceived during rapes.

One woman, Rebecca Kiessling, says

Please understand that whenever you identify yourself as being "pro-choice", or whenever you make that exception for rape, that what that really translates into is you being able to stand before me, look me in the eye, and say to me, ‘I think your mother should have been able to abort you.’" That’s a pretty powerful statement.
Their lives and the courage of their mothers says clearly that everyone has the right to live, regardless of how they were conceived.

It is also the testimony of many women who have become pregnant through rape that giving life to their child was the best thing they could have done to bring something good from such a terrible crime.

Someone Emailed This to Me

Pictured: The USS William Jefferson Clinton (CVS1) set sail today from its home port of Vancouver, BC.

The US Navy welcomed the latest member of its fleet today.

The ship is the first of its kind in the Navy and is a standing legacy to President Bill Clinton "for his foresight in military budget cuts" and his conduct while president. The ship is constructed nearly entirely from recycled aluminum and is completely solar powered with a top speed of 5 knots. It boasts an arsenal comprised of one (unarmed) F14 Tomcat or one (unarmed) F18 Hornet aircraft which although they cannot be launched or captured on the 100 foot flight deck but form a very menacing presence.

As a standing order there are no firearms allowed on board. The 20 person crew is completely diversified and includes members of all races, creeds, sex, and sexual orientation. This crew, like the crew aboard the USS Jimmy Carter, is specially trained to avoid conflicts and appease any and all enemies of the United States at all costs.

An on board Type One DNC Universal Translator can send out messages of apology in any language to anyone who may find America offensive. The number of apologies are limitless and though some may sound hollow and disingenuous, the Navy advises all apologies will sound very sincere.

The ship's purpose is not defined so much as a unit of national defense - but instead in times of conflict the USS Clinton has orders to seek refuge in Canada. The ship may be positioned near the Democratic National Party Headquarters for photo-ops and can be used extensively for social experimentation, and whatever other worthless jobs, the ex-commander-in-chief and his wife can think of.

It is largely rumored that the ship will also be the set for the upcoming season of MTV's "The Real World".

Argus Leader: A No Free Speech Zone?

Sibby has a post this afternoon about the Sioux Falls Argus Leader's efforts to get rid of an abortion protester they don't like.

Over the course of Friday morning, three Argus Leader employees called police about Brock's pickup
The Argus has voiced some safety concerns about a truck with anti-abortion signs on it which is parked near their office. However, their own article admits the owner of the truck is completely within the law.
The ordinance also requires vehicles to be parked at least 20 feet from a marked crosswalk, and Brock's truck was 22 feet from the crosswalk on the south side of Minnesota Ave
Perhaps the Argus needs to approach dissatisfaction with laws like us common folk: take it up through your duly elected representatives. But then, the Left would always rather just force their will on people without resorting to petty things like law and due process.

Clicky Web Analytics