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?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Real Doctors Choose Life

Unlike some doctors around South Dakota who seem to have no problem with killing an unborn child, a group of pro-life doctors has formed to let the public know that not all doctors are willing to turn a blind eye to murder.

From the Rapid City Journal:

“We are all here as members and representatives of South Dakota Physicians For Life. We are united in our support of HB1215.”
Dr. Don Oliver of Rapid City explains why an abortion is not just a woman removing some unwanted "tissue" or "cells" from her body, but is the murder of a distinct, individual human being:
“A genetically unique, separate human life begins at the moment of conception,” Oliver said. “An abortion, therefore, destroys a unique human individual that can never be replaced.”
From conception, the unborn child has a DNA sequence completely unique, DNA that is different from its mother or father. It is its own unique person, not a "blob of tissue" or "zytoblast."

The original Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors to preserve life included a prohibition against performing abortions.

In recent decades, some doctors have decided to "get hip" and trendy and PC and have succeeded in removing the prohibition against abortion from that Oath.

Not these doctors.

And they can't be minimized by calling them a "minority" as Dr. Marvin Buehner did.

Have you ever been overruled in a group decision? That's okay when it comes to deciding what restaurant to go to, but consensus is a lousy way to decide whether someone lives or dies. How would you like it if "majority rules" when it came to whether you live or die?

Abolitionists who wanted to end slavery 150 years ago were in the minority. Does that mean we should have kept slavery?

Dr. Ann Church summed up the whole thing nicely:
“I think we hear a lot of talk sometimes about (how) abortion should be rare but safe,” she said. “I think this bill fits that. It fits it to a T.”


Friday, October 13, 2006

Liberal Radio Air America Files for Bankruptcy

Just like every other liberal idea: bankrupt.


The Shining Light of Marxism

Here's what Marxism always brings in some form or another:



In case you didn't catch it, this is the satellite image of the Korean peninsula at night that's been in the news the past couple of days. If you look closely :-) you will notice that North Korea (Marxist Communist North, that is) is very dark...except for the "haves" in the capital city of Pyongyang (that's the tiny dot north of the dividing line, in the sea of darkness).

Granted, Marxism is at its extreme in communist North Korea, but it always diminishes the quality of life wherever it goes. In fact, the more Marxism, the more reduction in quality of life.

But that tiny dot of light in the North also has an important lesson to teach. In Marxist societies, which hypocritically preach equality, there is always a handful of privileged few who will be, in the words of George Orwell's "Animal Farm," "more equal" than the rest.

See all that light in South Korea? That's the shining light of true freedom, not the false egalitarian promise that Marxism offers and never delivers. Learn it, live it, love it!

I wish liberals would come to terms with this truth in their fevered desire to impose socialism (a milder form of Marxism) on America.


Rape Doesn't Have to Mean More Violence

VoteYesForLife.com has a short video from Megan Barnett, a young woman I interviewed a few months ago.

If you've heard about her story, you may recall that she was raped, but decided to keep her baby. She gives the unequivocal answer that it's the best thing she could have possibly done...unlike many women who are telling their stories that they killed their child after being raped, and have regretted it ever since.

Check out the video here; it'll only take a minute, and it will provide tremendous insight into this challenging issue.


Can We Legislate Morality?

Dr. Mike Adams had an excellent piece on TownHall.com yesterday. It dealt with the often-misunderstood issue of legislating morality, and the fallacy of how "you can't legislate morality."

Dr. Adams says it well:

During the 1990s, liberals stated that legislation designed to cut food stamps was "immoral." But most liberals also adhere to the belief that you "can't legislate morality." How can a bill be "immoral" if it can't be "moral"?
and
Was the 13th Amendment ban of slavery an example of Congress trying to "legislate morality"? If your answer is "yes," is that sufficient grounds to reinstate slavery?

Those who say there is no objective standard of morality base their opinion on the inability of people to act in accordance with that standard consistently. But isn't the absolute moral law more likely to be seen in people reactions, rather than their actions? Think about yourself for a moment. Sometimes you tell the truth, sometimes you don't. But, do you not react with consistent moral outrage when people lie to you?
and
How many of our Founding Fathers attended seminary? (Hint: It is more than 26 and less than 28).

In 1796, an act was passed by Congress under President Washington regulating the land given to the Society of United Brethren for "propagating the gospel among the heathen." The act was later extended by President Jefferson. Do you suppose that conflicts with his supposed insistence upon a "wall of separation between church and state"?
and
Is it true that Thomas Jefferson set up the University of Virginia – using state funds – with rules including a ban on swearing and an expectation that students would "attend religious services"?
and a very interesting one
How many of the states that ratified the First Amendment had official state churches?
As much as I'm sure they'd hate it, even an intellectually honest liberal (if there is such an animal) would have to admit that we can--AND DO--legislate morality. We do it every day. If we didn't, there would be complete and total anarchy, and the world would be a very, very unsafe place to try and live.

The question is: whose morality will we legislate? The morality that made this nation the greatest, best place on earth...or the Marxist socialist morality that has left nothing but dead bodies and destroyed lives in its wake?


Thursday, October 12, 2006

Jesus is not a socialist

WorldNetDaily has a good piece today by Tom Snyder about these idiots who call themselves "Red Letter Christians" (misinterpreting the "red letters" while apparently while ignoring the rest of the Bible).

He points out the classic liberal/socialist mistake regarding charity and compassion:

God presents us with three general ways in the Bible to take care of the poor and needy: 1) through the family; 2) through the church; and 3) through individual charity. The applicable passages for these three ways are Deuteronomy 14:28, 29, Numbers 18:24, Matthew 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16.
Then he spells it out:
In other words, Jesus is not a socialist. Nor is he a liberal. In fact, in none of the Bible passages just cited, nor in any others I know of, does Jesus, God or even Moses cite the government as the means by which the poor, needy, widowed and orphaned are housed, clothed and fed.
Then Snyder gets to what is really at the heart of it for socialists:
it is interesting to recall that the 10th Commandment in Exodus 20:17 actually protects private property by commanding people not to covet their neighbor's house or belongings. That commands applies to the average citizen as well as the elected official, the judge and all other government officials.
You see, it isn't about need with these Marxists (there are actually very few "needy" people in America), but it has everything to do with envy and covetousness. If your neighbor wants to share his wealth with you--fine. But you have no business coveting his wealth and possessions under the hypocritical mask which claims "he has more than his fair share."

Did he steal what he has? Did he cheat to get what he has? If you can't prove he did, then shut up! Otherwise you're just being a greedy little weasel who wants what isn't yours.

Snyder winds down with:
Finally, it is interesting to note that, in Mark 7:20-23, not only does Jesus Christ declare that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage, including homosexuality, pre-marital sex and adultery, is evil, he also declares that both greed and envy are evil. Thus, Jesus Christ condemns both the greed of the rich man as well as the greed of the poor man, and the envy of the poor man as well as the envy of the rich man.


Good stuff. The wisdom that the greatness of this nation was founded on. Too bad so many people have forgotten it in the heat of their envy.


Stan Adelstein Supports His Party

Here’s how “Republican” Stan Adelstein supports his party—by contributing money and effort to his party’s opposition.

From today’s Rapid City Journal:

Helping the party

Elli Schwiesow knows what party she belongs to; Stan is apparently very, very confused about where he belongs…


Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Choice or Coersion

Abortion is all about "choice" right? Or are many women coerced into killing their own children? I guess if we got rid of abortion altogether, we'd get rid of that coercion factor as well.

One more good letter from the Rapid City Journal today (boy, those pro-life fanatics were sure out in force today) :-):

War for women

Melanie Sekellick wrote a terrific letter published Oct. 3. She understands well that there is war regarding Referred Law 6. She correctly believes that women have and rightly deserve choices, rights and decisions about their own bodies, and she wisely relates this to her infant daughter asleep in the next room.

The only thing Melanie misses is seeing the end from the beginning. In her own words: "Not a good idea."

Melanie could have decided not to allow her infant daughter any rights at all, if she had chosen an abortion rather than to carry that little girl and birth her. This is silencing women in the most horrific way possible.

And what if Melanie had wanted her baby, but her little girl's dad insisted she have an abortion, like what happened to me? That was in 1983 right here in Rapid City, and I did not have the backbone to stand up for my child. I murdered my infant and the state allowed it.

The war is not against women. It is for women. It is a war for life, choices, decisions and rights.

I beg anyone reading this letter to please vote Yes.

JAYE GRANT
Rapid City


Not Just Christian

Ooooohh, I guess respect for life isn't just a Christian value.

Yet another good letter to the editor of the Rapid City Journal today:

Pro-life record

Alone among the ancient societies, the Hebrews regarded abortion as a crime associated with murder. Jewish tradition universally praises those who resisted abortion.

In Temple days, Jewish courts punished abortion as a crime. In "Against Apion," Flavius Josephus, explaining Jewish practice in Jerusalem, wrote: "The (Jewish) Law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus: a woman convicted of this commits infanticide, because she destroys a soul and diminishes the race."

In "A Study of Abortion in Primitive Societies" (1955), ethnographer George Devereaux said, "Jews considered it (abortion) a heathen abomination."

Since Christianity developed out of Judaism, no wonder Christians have promoted the sanctity of life for 2,000 years. Honor Judaism's magnificent 5,700-year and Christianity's 2,000-year pro-life record by voting for Eli Schwiesow and yes on Referendum 6 to keep HB1215

CINDY DELZER
Rapid City


Not the only one

Apparently I'm not the only one out there who is "intolerant" of clergy who tolerate sin in the name of political correctness. Another letter to the editor of the Rapid City Journal:

Word of God

Re: Rev. Larry Dahlstrom's Oct. 4 letter. Neither do I know you personally, nor do I know your church. However, if I had any of those associations, I would disown them both, based on your written opinion regarding abortion.

You have chosen to take your "wisdom" from a person, and not from the Word of God. Furthermore, you acknowledge that your opinion emits from what "smells to you" and not from what comes from what God has instructed you to eat and meditate upon.

God commands us to be holy, as He is holy. Holiness equates to pure, unblemished, dogmatic, fanatic, absolute, total obedience to the Word of God. At no place in His Word does it say to take what you like, or what smells good to you, or to what you think is desirable or acceptable. He says to eat His words and that obedience is better than sacrifice.

Because you detest "blind fanaticism," you are putting you and your flock at high risk for God's eternal judgment.

I challenge your reverend position on God's Word.

MICHAEL ROBECK
Rapid City


Letters to the Editor

There were several good letters to the editor of the Rapid City Journal today. Here's one:

Smart girls

I'm glad women of today realize they have a choice. Opportunities are unlimited; deciding "yes" or "no" is the hard part.

Making a good choice is the secret of happiness. "He" cannot make you happy, that's your territory! Nor can you gift "him" happiness. Happiness comes from self-fulfillment within.

Important choices should not be made on the spur of the moment but according to your own principles and beliefs. Good choices are made by thought and listening to the small, pure voice of one's conscience - that sense we have of both right and wrong. Sexual feelings or impulses don't necessarily mean love.

Smart Girls don't trade their bodies sexually for love promises. Smart Girls know sex can gift you a crying baby in nine months. Smart Girls choose to say no loudly and with closure. Smart Girls don't kill their own babies by abortion. Smart Girls are the women men choose to marry. Smart girls make good choices!

S. DAVIS STONE
Rapid City


Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Abortion Hurts Women, Too

VoteYesForLife.com has had a good radio spot playing across the state for the past couple of weeks. If you haven't heard it, you can go here to listen.

It tells the truth about the abortion ban, told by Kayla Brandt, a woman who had an abortion and knows the devastation it causes, not only for the life of her child, but for the life of the mother.

It takes less than a minute to listen to the piece. Go listen, hear it from someone who's been there...and deeply regrets it.


Wolves on the Loose

What is it with all the doublespeak these days?

- We have groups like South Dakota Campaign for "Healthy" families that urges people to support a procedure which kills unborn children and subjects women to health risks and a lifetime of regret.

- We also have a group called Pastors for Moral Choices that apparently couldn't recognize a moral choice if it came up to them and bit their noses off.

A bunch of worthless excuses for "pastors" from the latter group held a press conference today where they condemned Referred Law 6, saying it was "neither just nor compassionate" according to the Argus Leader.

One of their reasons for opposing the abortion ban is that they claim it would "prohibit people of faith from following their consciences." Don't they mean it would "prohibit people of faith from following their lack of a conscience?" Or possibly they mean it would "prohibit people of faith from violating their consciences?"

God, the author of human life, didn't plant a conscience in people that says "go kill the life I put in your womb if it's inconvenient for you."

This bunch of spiritual reprobates also claim to oppose Referred Law 6 because they claim it would "force women and girls to carry pregnancies caused by violence or coercion."

I certainly wouldn't send any of these jokers even to pick up some apples at the store for me. If I told them to pick the best, most ripe apples, they'd likely come back with a bunch of rotted mush, if this is the best "moral choice" they can come up with.

Becoming pregnant as a result of a rape would be a terrible thing. Encouraging the woman to kill her own child--a child that is half "her"--simply because the child was conceived in a violent act, is one of the most morally irresponsible recommendations I believe I've ever heard from someone who enjoys the misplaced honor of being a member of the clergy. These people will have a lot to answer for someday when they face their Creator, the Creator of those whom these "pastors" are giving hearty approval to the destruction of.

Despite their drift toward liberalism and moral aimlessness, I know there are still some good Christians left in the denominations represented by this bunch of churchy charlatans; these are the ones we were warned about in Acts 20: 29-30 and 2 Timothy 4:3-4. Hopefully the remaining Christians will either throw out these deceivers, or will leave these rotting corpses of Christianity behind and go somewhere that God's word is still believed. Because by their own testimony today, wherever these "pastors" are, sound doctrine isn't.


To the Undecided in South Dakota

Andrew Longman has a very cogent, logical explanation why the various exceptions "sought after" by pro-abortionists are completely illogical on several levels.

Among the areas it examines are the contention that abortion is a "private matter," that you "can't legislate morality," and so on.

The piece is a little on the longer side, but is full of information for the person who truly wants to look at the issue logically and make the right decision:

Consider murder. It’s a very personally motivated crime. People murder other people most often for intensely private, mostly domestic reasons. Wives who have been beaten silly by husbands for twenty years, husbands cheated on - you know the pantheon of human evil. Most murderers have justifications. But there is a rigid law against murder that prevents the deaths of many millions of people. Is it perfect? Does it remove the moral burden of murder?
Or how about tax evasion, another so-called "victimless crime":
Well then, let’s consider taxes and cheating on them – the victimless crime. People have hard scrabble lives. They have kids in college, kids with disabilities, un-working leech relatives. People have their reasons. Can’t it be viewed as moral that they are cheating on their taxes? Can you imagine how utterly rigid the government law is that tries, and fails, to solve the problem of tax evasion? They have IRS agents that kick in doors with guns in the extreme cases! Because we cannot solve the problem of tax evasion, and because you are “always going to have the problem”, should we then give up the collection of revenue? Quit trying to legislate morality?
And for those who argue that it should be morally acceptable to kill the unborn child of the rapist (who is incidentally the unborn child of the woman, too):
For the killer who commits murder, in order to get back at him for his crime and for the incredible burden he has placed on the family of the victim, we should take the criminal’s youngest child and execute him or her. Violently.

For the rapist – oh, we’ve got that covered. We’re going to kill his youngest child. Ok, right. We’re just going to do all rapists that way.
So how much sense does it make to allow the murder of the unborn child whose only crime was to be conceived by a rapist?
The moral and cognitive disconnect for people who think they want an exception for rape or incest is: the baby is still not a person in your heart even though the baby is a person in fact. Without science changing at all, you think by a change in attitude you can give or take away the worth of the baby. You are dealing with this issue emotionally and not rationally. Rationally, it makes no sense to murder the baby because of the crimes of her father. Emotionally, you reach a wrong conclusion by being filled with angry injustice against the rapist-father and so you overlook the humanity of the child, calling her instead a “pregnancy”.
The piece sums it up well:
The South Dakota law, insofar as it will not allow any exception for rape or incest, is then morally cogent, morally coherent, and praiseworthy in that formulation. The undecided voters should recognize that protecting all human life is the only moral consistency. Anything else is prejudice and irrational contempt for an innocent baby human being who does not know why he should die for the sins of his father.
Go read the whole thing. It's well worth it, whether you're pro-life, pro-abortion, or undecided.


Monday, October 09, 2006

Boy Escapes Death Culture

An 11 year old boy has awakened from a two-year coma. He was said to be in a "persistent vegetative state" such as Terri Schiavo was said to be in last year.

For two years, Devon slept in a bed in a pediatric nursing home, seemingly unaware of his surroundings until one-day in August when Devon woke up.
They murdered her, but this boy got a chance to wake up and begin relearning basic skills.

Terri Schiavo was able (on video) to laugh, show response to negative stimuli, smile, follow a moving object with her eyes, and attempt to talk...but she was legally murdered (what a contradiction in terms!) in Florida last year.

The evidence that we allowed her to be legally murdered was there before her death, has continued to accumulate since her death, and will continue to point the guilty finger at the American society that did nothing or was a cheering-squad to her murder.

Thankfully, this boy escaped the "compassion" of the pro-death Left.


Media Misrepresents Rep. Larry Rhoden

Received an email today from Sandy Rhoden, wife of state House of Representatives Majority Leader Larry Rhoden.

Seems someone in the media is misrepresenting Rep. Rhoden's position on Referred Law 6.

To our surprise, the associate press released a very misleading quote and statement about Larry's position on the exceptions in Ref. Law 6. Once again the press has done a very convincing job of making it sound as though he has regrets, and because of the polls he has somehow changed his position.

I'm here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. The New York reporter led him into a statement by asking him if he'd ever had any second thoughts. As with any bill of monumental proportions, one many times wonders, at least momentarily, if they've made the right decision, especially when bombarded with emails, phone calls, and all kinds of press opposing that decision.

Larry spoke to this man for 30 minutes very positively about HB1215, Ref. Law 6, and felt good about the interview. He felt it put a very good light on the bill with NO exceptions. However, the journalist chose to twist the interview to make it sound as though Larry was not totally behind it without exceptions. After the long interview, the reporter used only one of Larry's quotes which was used to convey 'his' twisted message.

"I've spent a great deal of time and thought wondering if it would have been wiser to write in the exceptions. We have a long row to hoe based on the numbers I've seen". This was Larry's quote. The 'journalist's words' were: "He was swayed by women's testimony that their abortions left emotional scars, but now--aware of polls showing his side behind--he has second thoughts. " In Larry's quote there is no 'second thoughts' comment at all. The polls have played 'no' role in his position and he takes little stock in them.

Larry had no second thoughts when he first signed the bill, HB1191 two years ago, nor does he now. He has spoken at a dozen events and still plans to speak at several more "Proclaiming Life and Liberty" programs that we have left. Just as he spoke on the House floor about how "a life is a life and all life is precious" he has been echoing those words from June 4 until today. Larry has sacrificed 9 Sundays to travel and speak about this and much more.
Just wanted to set the record straight...which is something the liberal media has a wee bit of a problem with (but it's only us Right-wingers who are biased, right?).


Liberal denial threatens civilization

That title isn't mine, but the title of a piece written by a liberal about liberals.

While I obviously don't agree with this liberal on much, he does point out an important truth--one that I and many, many other people have been trying to point out since 911 and before.

...my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world - specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith...despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism
The writer, Sam Harris, points out that the evidence is overwhelming that many in Islamic culture are bent on the destruction of those in the West, those who are not Muslims (and almost all of the remaining Muslims are silent before the barbarism of some in their number).

Harris also points out that the wacko conspiracy theories provide a window of insight into what is wrong with the Left, giving us a
view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.
He concludes:

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement. It does not bode well for the future of civilization.
I agree--totally. Liberals need to pull their heads out of the sand long enough to get a good dose of reality. It's one thing to spend all day fantasizing about some Marxist utopia...it's quite another to play in a fantasy world of peace and love while the enemy is at the gate.


 
Clicky Web Analytics