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, November 03, 2007

Replacing Weasels with Patriots


There's been talk the past few days that some of the diplomatic staff at the State Department are almost in open rebellion about being assigned to Iraq. Apparently these pansies think it's too dangerous to be posted over there (what about the troops who are not only posted there, but walk the streets and hills of Iraq?).

But Rep. Duncan Hunter has a great idea. From WorldNetDaily:

"I said, 'Let's go over to Bethesda and Walter Reed (hospitals) and as we get these new – these soldiers and Marines who are embarking on new careers," Hunter said, "let's recruit them for the State Department; and let's fire these guys that refuse to go, and we'll give the State Department careers to these military guys."

The State Department are about about the biggest bunch of pansies and anti-Americans in our government. The department was full of communists back in the days of FDR (remember the traitor Alger Hiss?) and I'm sure for a long time afterward. There's also a story of how Secretary of State George Schultz under Reagan had to explain to our foreign ambassadors that their allegiance was to the United States, not the country in which they were posted. The State Department has acted like a shadow government for decades, working to undermine any strong foreign policy that stood firm against the Soviet Union or other despots around the world.

Hunter's idea is great! It would not only fill any voids in the diplomatic corps, it would allow former military members--who are otherwise plenty able to function--to continue service to their country, and it would also help clean out a bunch of the weasels in the State Dept and replace them with patriotic Americans.
In the radio interview today, Beck responded enthusiastically to Hunter's idea.

"That is fantastic," Beck said. " … These guys are some of the most remarkable humans I have ever met and none of them, as you know, none of them want to leave service."

Hunter replied, "Exactly. And this would be great service for them. In Baghdad, in the State Department, the embassy, they know the lay of the land. They know the people, and they are professionals, and they are patriotic."

Hunter said Bush indicated he might be open to the idea.


Fighting Global Warming on Cold Morning


From today's Rapid City Journal:

MOUNT RUSHMORE -- While audience members shivered and pulled on their free Stop Global Warming T-shirts to add another layer, local Greenpeace organizer Ferale Hubbard admitted that it was hard to think about global warming.

“Thank you for coming and waiting in the cold … it’s difficult to think (about) right now, but we all know the disastrous affects of global warming,” she said to about 35 people who showed up Saturday afternoon at Mount Rushmore Ampitheater for a global warming rally.

Boy, and they say Christians go on blind faith...


Twin Baby Refuses to be Aborted

From the UK Daily Mail:

But at her 20-week scan, doctors had some devastating news. One of the boys was half the size of his brother.

They didn't know what was causing it, but somehow he wasn't getting enough nutrients.

Then doctors said his heart was three times normal size and it was likely he would have a heart attack or a stroke in the womb.

Mrs Jones said: "They told us that if he died, it could be life threatening for his brother.

"We had to decide whether to end his life and let his brother live, or risk them both."

They said it would be impossible to keep him alive afterwards as he was so poorly.

It would be kinder to let him die in the womb with his brother by his side than to die alone after being born.

"That made my mind up for me. I wanted the best thing for him."

At Birmingham Women's Hospital, when Mrs Jones was 25 weeks pregnant, doctors tried to sever Gabriel's umbilical cord to cut off his blood supply and allow him to die.

But the cord was too thick, and they could not cut through it.


As a last resort they divided Mrs Jones's placenta so that when Gabriel died, it would allow Ieuan to survive. Mrs Jones said: "I put my hands on my stomach thinking of Gabriel. It was devastating. I had said my goodbyes."

But the next morning Mrs Jones felt Gabriel kicking. A scan showed his heart was still beating. She said: "No one could quite believe it."

Gabriel hung on, and his enlarged heart started to reduce in size. He also gained weight.


Mrs Jones said: "The boys are so healthy, they have huge appetites too. Ieuan is the noisy one, while Gabriel is always laughing, it's like he's just so happy to be here.

"There is such a strong bond between them.

"They are always holding hands and if one cries, the other reaches out to comfort him."

"Doctors tried to break their bond in the womb, but they just proved it couldn't be broken."

When it comes to ending innocent human life, that's a decision best left to God.

Go read the entire article, and see the pictures of these two little human beings who miraculously both got a chance to live, despite the best efforts of some to kill one of them.


Canadian Health Care: No Same-Day Appt for You

Need to know why some of us are so adamantly opposed to socialized medicine? You need look no further than our friendly neighbors to the north: Canada.

From the Canadian Press:

Canada has the worst rating in a new study of health care in seven countries when it comes to wait times for seeing doctors and getting elective surgery.

And the Commonwealth Fund says Canadians are most likely to report going to an emergency room as an alternative to a visit to a doctor's office or clinic.

Only 22 per cent of Canadians survey say they could get a same-day appointment when they're sick. Thirty per cent - by far the highest among the countries - say they had to wait six days or more.

And 15 per cent reported waits of six months or more for non-emergency surgery.

So one in three people have to wait six days or more to get an appointment when they're sick. By that time, a lot of illnesses will have passed. Perhaps that's a good way to reduce medical costs, after all.

But there's a silver lining.
"On the plus side, when it comes to access to care without extra payment, Canada stands out very well among the top of the nations. That's certainly a value that Canadians treasure."

What? You say they already paid through the nose for this "free" health care through exorbitant taxes? Oh. I guess the silver lining is more of a lead lining.

I lived under socialized medicine, both in the military and when I was stationed in England for three years. Unless you're one of these kind of people that runs to the doctor every time you get the sniffles--and are very patient to boot--it's a system that blows chunks, to put it politely.

Want health care costs to skyrocket? Make our system even more socialized than it already is. Sure, you'll have the illusion that it's "free", if that makes you feel better. Just remember that when you see your taxes reduce you to something like a serf.


Friday, November 02, 2007

Homosexuality: Saying 'No' is the Loving Response

J. Matt Barber at OneNewsNow addresses an argument often heard these days, specifically that Christians spend an inordinate amount of time condemning homosexuality.

Barber does a good job of answering this charge, but I'd like to add my two cents to hopefully make it just a tad clearer as to why there is some truth to this charge, but that in substance it is unjustified.

1. Acceptance of homosexuality is vociferously demanded by all avenues of pop culture, including music, television, movies, schools, news, and politics. No matter where you go, you cannot long escape the expectation that you not only tolerate homosexuality, but that you give hearty approval of it.

2. There is almost certainly no other sin which is not only overlooked, not only excused, but is claimed by pop culture to be completely legitimate, normal, natural, healthy and moral.

There are many people who drink, have sex before marriage, commit adultery, do drugs, steal, rape, vandalize. Yet when is the last time someone said drunkenness/premarital sex/adultery/substance abuse/theft/rape/vandalism were morally wholesome and approved of by God? Can you think of a single instance, much less hearing such a message of approval from all corners of pop culture?

Even those who do such deeds will seldom claim they are morally wholesome and approved of by God. They'll try to excuse and justify the behavior, of course, but I doubt you'll ever hear these behaviors lauded as morally legitimate.

In such an environment where the topic is endlessly raised, and there are endless, repeated demands that the behavior be accepted as morally legitimate, those who know that it is not only unhealthy but immoral have two choices:

1. They can either capitulate and say nothing

2. They can answer "no" every time pop culture says "yes"--which is A LOT

Within this firm stand that God's people must take, we must not forget to love. Each of us was a sinner, and still sins. We need God's forgiveness and grace as much as anyone--including the homosexual.

But even as we love, we must not excuse. (This goes back to what I've been saying about Mike Huckabee's lack of balance on the grace/law issue--you have to have both). If excusing sin was the right thing to do, then there would have been no reason for Jesus to die on the cross. But Jesus sacrificed himself for a sinful human race (1) because we needed his grace, and we needed it because (2) God is a holy God and cannot simply excuse or tolerate sin. The price of sin had to be paid, and Jesus paid it for us.

God says "no" to sins such as homosexuality, adultery, lying, theft, violence and others because he loves us too much to leave us mired in such destructive behavior. As His people, we should love others too much to ignore their slavery to destructive sin, too.

So if you believe what God said, then you know that you have a duty to be the "salt and light" in a dark, fallen world. And you know that you not only have a duty to love, you have a duty not to fall prey to the propaganda of the enemy which calls you to abandon on an altar of fake love (cowardice?), your duty to speak the truth.


The Huckabee Immigration Spin Machine


At OneNewsNow, Mike Huckabee attempts to defend his stance on illegal immigration:

He also refuses to apologize for his record of supporting pre-natal care for pregnant illegal aliens and a plan that allows illegal aliens who graduate from Arkansas high schools to apply for state college scholarships. "I don't think you punish children for the crimes of the parent. Whether it's the crime of coming here illegally, or you don't put a child in prison because the father robbed a bank," he argues. "And so I did propose some things in Arkansas that would treat children differently than parents who had broken the law. And I think that's the appropriate response to take."

I'm sorry but this just doesn't fly.

Emergency care is one thing. But if a pregnant illegal immigrant is identified, she needs to be deported. If an illegal immigrant applies for a college scholarship...he/she needs to be sent home.

I don't recall anyone saying anything about putting children in jail for the crimes of their father; in fact, I think this is an intentionally inflammatory statement on Huckabee's part to misdirect attention away from the real issue. If illegal immigrants are identified, you deport them back home, family and all.

Family is important and families should be kept together except when there's a compelling reason to incarcerate a parent. Therefore, if the only crime the parent has committed is entering the United States illegally, you process them and deport the whole nuclear family. If the father/mother has committed a crime worthy of incarceration, then you lock them up as you would anyone else and deal with the children...the same way you would the children of any other offender. The only difference being, say, the father commits a jailable offense and you identify that his wife and children are here illegally, then you incarcerate him and deport the rest of the family. We don't look at a criminal who has children and say, "Oh, he committed a crime, but we can't lock him up or deal with that because then we'd be 'punishing children for the crimes of their parent.'" What a bunch of bunk!

This isn't rocket science, and Huckabee's attempt to play the sympathy card is disappointing at best from a Republican. Most issues are pretty simple, and only become complicated when we try to find ways to avoid dealing with incorrect behavior without actually admitting that's what we're doing.

This is why Huckabee's contention that he's "a 'grace' Christian, not a 'law' Christian" is not only unbalanced theologically, but has "real world" ramifications in that he tends to make excuses for illegal behavior, rather than dealing with the problem.

Then there's more obfuscation from Huckabee on his liberal positions, this time on buying into the Leftist "global warming" fantasy.
Huckabee has also been riding a wave of support on the campaign trail from evangelical Christians, including some liberal evangelicals who believe human activity is causing global warming. The more than 100 signers of the Evangelical Climate Initiative recently praised Huckabee for "announcing his support for a mandatory cap on global warming pollution" and "recognizing that Americans have a moral obligation to address climate change." He tells OneNewsNow that he wants to "create a greater level of conservation."

"Sometimes the issue gets lost in an argument over whether there is global warming and whether humans cause it," he notes. "For me, that's not even the debate -- I don't try to get into that. I just know that the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. It belongs to him. I'm a guest, I don't own it. I'm a steward of this planet, and because of that I think I have to take good care of it," says Huckabee.

The issue doesn't get lost in that argument--that IS the argument: whether humans are causing a warming of the planet. If we are, then maybe we can and should do something about it. But if we're not, then it's just a natural cycle (which is what the evidence indicates), and carbon credit schemes are worse than useless.

I don't know of anyone who's saying "Gee, let's pollute the planet." Any reasonable person would support doing things in the cleanest way feasible, and taking care of this planet that God has left man in charge of. But the radical environmentalists have lost sight of the fact that creation is here for man, not man existing to serve creation. And Huckabee's response above clearly says nothing substantive, while trying to straddle the fence between those of us who know the global warming fantasy is nothing but an attempt to cripple Western civilization, and those who want it crippled.

How disappointing all this is, from not only a Republican, but a Baptist minister.

The Republican Party can not only do better than Rudy Giuiliani, it can do a whole lot better than Huckabee, too.


Death Penalty Reduces Murders

Opponents of the death penalty like to tell us that there's no deterrent effect from capital punishment. Since it takes an average of 11 years to execute a convicted murderer, thus far removing the act from it's consequences, that might not be a surprise.

But would it be a surprise if there were STILL a deterrent effect even with that 11 year gap between cause and effect?

The Wall Street Journal features an article by Roy Adler and Michael Summers with a study finding that for every execution, the following year sees 74 fewer murders.

Among the findings:

In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated with a drop in the number of murders. In the mid-to-late 1980s, when the number of executions stabilized at about 20 per year, the number of murders increased.

Throughout the 1990s, our society increased the number of executions, and the number of murders plummeted.

Since 2001, there has been a decline in executions and an increase in murders.

The death penalty should be used--and used much more quickly--not only for it's life-saving effect, but because justice demands it.

You see, deterrent is a positive side-effect, not the object of capital punishment. We execute the convicted murderer because we recognize the value of innocent human life. In murdering someone, you steal their ability to care for their family, love their spouse and children, attain their dreams, and accomplish things; you have stolen TIME from them, the very years of their life. Inherent in any good justice system is the concept of restitution; if you take something, you replace or pay back. The only thing is, you can't restore or pay back a stolen life. The closest you can come is to give up your own life. In doing so, you acknowledge the wrongful taking of those years from the victim, and the value of those stolen years.

The by-product of paying the ultimate price for the theft of a person's life is that it instills in the public an appreciation for innocent human life (it's so sacred that you must give up your own life for the life wrongly taken)...and it sends a message to those who might be inclined to kill to think twice: is it really worth risking your life to end the life of another?


Once Again: Survey Finds Dems Painted Favorably by Media

A new survey out from Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, finds overwhelming tilt to the Left in the media (surprised, huh?). And though it was founded as a Christian college, Harvard isn't exactly a conservative stronghold these days.

From Investors Business Daily:

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."

In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.

The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."

Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.

Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.

The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it's there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.

CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.

The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition." There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports.

In case you didn't know, NPR is funded by taxpayer dollars--it's a government media outlet. So we have an official, taxpayer-funded liberal propaganda arm. Nice, huh.


Thursday, November 01, 2007

A Woman Person for President?

I definitely don't have a problem with a woman being president, but I am definitely particular about the woman that gets elected. I don't just want "any" woman, simply because she is a woman and possibly can stir up enough money and power to push her way into the office. I want one that knows what integrity is and lives it. I want one that is qualified and interested in the welfare and well-being of the people of the US without trying to make the citizens wards of the government and at the mercy of the so-called elite. I want one that remembers what this nation stood for and is proud to be an American. PROUD and doesn't feel a need to make excuses for being one.

When such a woman runs for president, I'll vote for her if she is the best candidate running! My vote -- your vote -- all votes -- are too important to use to sell us into failure and slavery at the hands of someone... anyone... who believes Big Brother and socialism is what is best for the American people, except for the ones that are here illegally and therefore not required to follow the same rules as the rest of us.


Stephen Colbert won't appear on SC ballot

Colbert won't appear on SC ballot
By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer 31 minutes ago

South Carolina Democrats squashed Stephen Colbert's fanciful White House bid on Thursday.

Colbert, who poses as a conservative talk-show host on the Comedy Central cable network, filed to get on the ballot as a Democratic candidate in his native South Carolina. His campaign paid a $2,500 filing fee just before the noon deadline, said state Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler.

However, after about 40 minutes of discussion by top party officials, the executive council voted 13-3 to keep the host of "The Colbert Report" off the ballot.

"He's really trying to use South Carolina Democrats as suckers so he can further a comedy routine," said Waring Howe, a member of the executive council. And Colbert "serves to detract from the serious candidates on the ballot."


You mean we haven't been watching a comedy routine playing out? One where the joke appears to be on the citizens of the United States of America?


Licenses for Illegals

From Fox News:

Hillary Clinton's campaign said late Wednesday that she supports New York Gov.'s Eliot Spitzer's plan for illegal immigrant driver's licenses, a clarification required after a twisted campaign performance Tuesday night left people guessing her position.

So Hillary Clinton supports giving drivers licenses to people who shouldn't be in this country in the first place.

I'm glad she made that clear.


Pedophiles Skirt the Legal System

From KOTA:

A year ago, 70 percent of California voters approved Jessica's Law, which bars registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or a park where children gather. That leaves few places where offenders can live legally.

And now, hundreds of sex offenders are declaring themselves homeless -- whether or not they really are. And that's making it difficult for the state to track them.

Experts say it's hard to monitor people who lie about their address or who live day-to-day in cheap hotels or shelters, or on the street. And they say it also means the offenders may not be getting the treatment they need.

A therapist who's been chairman of the state Coalition on Sexual Offending says, "We could potentially be making the world more dangerous rather than less dangerous."

Do we really expect people who would take advantage sexually of children to be open and honest with us?

Given the high recidivism rate of child molesters, maybe we should just leave these people behind bars, where we know they won't be able to harm children again? Wouldn't that be a novel idea: worry about society's safety more than a convicted criminal's "rights?"


Christmas List Addition

Carrie Hutchens brought it to my attention that this year, when you're making out your Christmas card list, there's one more you should include:

A Recovering American soldier
c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue,NW
Washington,D.C. 20307-5001

Regardless of whether you agree with the war in Iraq, our soldiers have put their life on the line to do their duty to our country. Please consider sending them a small token of our thanks. I've never been injured in combat, but as a veteran who has served overseas, I can assure you such a gesture would be greatly appreciated by these heroes.

UPDATE: Please read the comments section of this post. I receved notice that Walter Reed cannot accept such mail due to safety concerns. It's sad, but in this day and age, understandable.


Conversion of an Atheist


Evolution News today points to an interview with former atheist Antony Flew. Flew has been described as a "sort of Richard Dawkins before Dawkins, his name synonymous with staunchly materialistic beliefs."

Among the interesting statements regarding his conversion from atheism to theism:

There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.

And
I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

In answering how he came to the conclusion that the universe had to be intelligently designed, he refers to the worldview interpretation of scientific data that I have often talked about:
Flew: It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence.

Flew isn't alone in his realization that naturalism and materialism come up short in explaining the origins of the universe. Many scientists who are intellectually honest admit this shortcoming.

Whether they realize it or not, even atheistic scientists bring biases, presuppositions, dogmatism and, yes, faith to the table when they interpret scientific evidence.

Both theists and atheists bring faith to the table when they both examine the same scientific evidence. But where does the evidence lead?

Only someone hopelessly invested in denying the existence of the Timex watch company would look at an intricately designed Timex watch and say that these watch parts came together into a functioning unit through blind chance.

And only someone hopelessly invested in denying the existence of the Creator Elohim would look at the intricately designed universe, and an earth filled with fantastically complex life, and say that all this came together into a functioning unit through blind chance.


Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Is Abortion a 'Holocaust'?

It seems Mike Huckabee is in some hot water for some abortion comments he made at the Washington Briefing a couple of weeks ago.

From LifeNews.com:

“Sometimes we talk about why we’re importing so many people in our work force,” Huckabee said in the speech.

“It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our work force had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973," he explained.

The word "holocaust" was around long before the Hitler's Jewish Holocaust of the 1940s. It comes from two Greek words "holos" meaning "completely" and "kaustos" referring to burnt sacrifices.

If one sticks to the strict meaning of these two Greek words, despite the fact that some 47 million children have been slaughtered in the last 34 years, "holocaust" might not exactly fit this barbaric practice. However, when you consider that many of these abortions were chemical abortions where the unborn children such as almost happened to Gianna Jessen were burned alive inside their mother's wombs...

Liberals--and the Anti-Defamation League is composed primarily of liberals--are more likely far more upset that abortion is being identified by Huckabee as the horrific practice that it is, than they are concerned that this reference might slight the horror of Hitler's Holocaust against the Jews.

Yet liberals seemed to have no problem with applying the term "holocaust" to "nuclear" to talk of a "nuclear holocaust" back in the days when they were trying to fear-monger Ronald Reagan into cow towing to the Soviets.

If anything, using the word "holocaust" in connection with the brutal murder of 47 million innocent children should serve to reinforce, not diminish, the gravity of what the monster Hitler did against the Jewish people in Europe.

Liberals can be pretty selective about their indignation, relying on the trusty "race card" to mask their hypocrisy.


On Being Pro-Life and Pro-Choice

I think Bill Harlan at Mt. Blogmore and the folks at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune are smoking something if they really believe the debate over abortion can be resolved by some touchy-feely talk.

Here are the excerpts of a Star Tribune editorial cited by Harlan:

Might that change if abortion were discussed not in terms of absolutes and inflexible rights, but of moral ambiguity? What if those discussions moved out of the confrontational environment of the courtroom, into the conversational arena of politics?

And
The South Dakota experience is also being analyzed for the tantalizing possibility it appears to offer. It might be that a peaceful resolution to America’s long-running culture war is possible, at the polls.

In other words, if liberals can just find the right words to fool the average American into believing what they're offering isn't really what they're offering, then liberalism will have won.

This sort of thing is always what the Left wants: they hope that if they can appeal to people's heart strings and emotions rather than their heads, we'll all sit around, sing Kumbaya and John Lennon's "Imagine" will come to fruition.

But it won't happen. Liberals forget that, unlike themselves, conservatives are primarily motivated by logic and intellect, not emotion. The pro-life response to such calls for peace with (or rather, unilateral disarmament of) pro-lifers would be something like, "Yeah, getting along is nice. But abortion still kills a human being." You can feel all you want, you can sympathize with the pregnant mother all you want...but that truth that a human life is ended will never change. To the rational mind, the right to simply live trumps all other rights.

The editorial even admits what I knew all along last year: that the pro-abortion folks had to base their appeal on emotions, not facts.
A change in language by those seeking to overturn the ban was crucial to their solid 12-point victory in South Dakota, Stoesz attested. They set aside phrases like "defenders of reproductive rights," and stopped emphasizing the "choice" theme that has been their movement's signature. That's the language of litigation, not persuasion.

Instead, the ban's opponents united under the banner "South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families."

To include the words "healthy" and "families" in a group that advocates a procedure which ends a human life, and one that terminates the newest member of a family, and brings increased risks of infertility and breast cancer and depression and substance abuse on the women who do it, evokes powerful Orwellian images of 1984 doublespeak.

We see more of this Orwellian language when the Star-Tribune piece says
...a truth that has been obscured by four decades of fightin' words emerged, and could be embraced: It is possible to be both "prolife" and "prochoice" at the same time.

Oh, really? Can you be pro-free market and advocate government control of the economy at the same time? Can you be pro-woman and pro-choice about rape? Can you be pro-life and pro-murder at the same time?

Such idealistic notions might appeal to people who can't deal with hard choices, but they wilt quickly in the light of logic and reason. But of course, pro-abortion folks are betting the average voter won't employ either.

Their hope is to unilaterally disarm the average voter with the soothing Novocaine of the notion that they can avoid a difficult decision by passing the buck to "choice." This way, they don't have to say "no" to the mother who is inconvenienced by the new life growing inside her. They also believe they don't have to say "no" to the unborn child whose only drive in the womb is to grow and live; someone else may be saying "no" to this child's right to live, but it isn't them. This moral Novocaine says that murder can be excused by saying "it was the other person's choice."

The idea of being pro-life and pro-choice at the same time might be appealing for those who have to live with advocating the murder of unborn children, but it doesn't fly with people who tend to favor facts over the shifting sands of the human heart.


Poll: Most GOP Evangelicals Could Go Third Party


This can't be good news for the liberal Republican Party "establishment" types.

From Fox News:

More than half of white evangelical Republicans would consider voting for a conservative third-party candidate should the 2008 presidential race pit Hillary Rodham Clinton against Rudy Giuliani, a poll said Wednesday.

According to the poll, 55 percent of white evangelical Republicans said they would consider a conservative who ran as a third-party candidate. Forty-two percent said they would not.

Evangelicals comprise 34 percent of GOP and Republican-leaning voters, according to Pew. They are divided about evenly among Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

There's a relatively easy way for the Republican establishment to prevent 34% of their base from deserting: don't support the nomination of a nominee who doesn't hold to the critical Republican positions on the defense of life and marriage.

I wonder if they're listening...or if they're still convinced that this dissatisfaction with the party is isolated to a few provincial Bible-thumpers? I suppose if they want to throw away the White House and Congress next year, they can keep on thinking that way.


Coloring the News

Newsbusters has an illustrative piece on media bias and how the "mainstream" media colors the perceptions of the public toward the facts of a story.

Sometimes journalists show their liberal colors in bold and easy-to-identify ways. Other times, they do so subtly, leaving out a key fact or by a word choice that evokes certain emotions in the reader.

Newsbusters points out that when Democrat Dan Sutton's scandal arose, AP reporter Chet Brokaw somehow "forgot" to include Sutton's Democratic Party affiliation. Yet when covering Republican Ted Klaudt's scandal, he didn't miss the fact that Klaudt is a Republican.

Does this sort of coverage--which is definitely not isolated to Brokaw--have anything to do with popular perceptions (especially as we saw last year) of "scandal ridden Republicans?"

Also notice how the "mainstream" media weeps and wails (under the veil of caring about the troops) over the number of U.S. military who have been killed in Iraq, while providing no perspective such as how many were lost in ONE DAY at Normandy, or in ONE DAY on 911?

Or remember the full-court press when Bill Clinton was being impeached for perjury? There was little or no discussion of the elements of the offense (beyond quibbling over what the definition of "is" was), but we had plenty of polls thrown in our faces on a daily basis about how the American people so loved their reprobate leader and didn't want him thrown out (was there any of this same coloring of perceptions with HOW the poll questions were asked?).

Or how about the Valerie Plame so-called spy scandal? Was there any serious discussion of whether a crime was actually committed? Was there any mention of the fact that this woman, widely known in Washington social circles to be a CIA employee, was listed on a list of Who's Who? Was the distinction made in the "mainstream" press that she was an employee of the CIA, but not a covert agent as defined by the law? The only thing that was important was: can we nail the Bush administration for anything? Once again the facts of the story bit the dust, via what was NOT reported, in favor of an agenda.

Discussions of how many conservative versus liberal columnists there are out there are realatively meaningless. What counts is the NEWS. Are we getting straight, unbiased, uncolored news coverage? Or are we getting something colored by the reporter's bias, and thus coloring our perception of the objective facts?

The fact that most liberal journalists are totally oblivious to their own bias (or at least indicate that they are) should tell us something.


Candidate Quiz

I came across another of those candidate calculators today, this one at WQAD.



The first one (see link above) I tried asked a lot more questions. While it came out close to where I would have pegged the candidates myself, this one comes out a little closer, with Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter in a tie for my #1 (beyond purely policy issues, my main reason for not supporting Thompson more strongly is that he really doesn't seem to has the charisma and fire-in-the-belly I'd like to see in a candidate).



Give this one a try, but don't forget to check the candidates' record to find out if the walk the talk.


Hillary's Dismal Debate Performance

The Politico has harsh words regarding Hillary Clinton's debate performance last night:

In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign.

It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued drivers’ licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.

It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.

They also noticed another characteristic often displayed by Hillary Clinton:
Perhaps just as bad was her general tone and demeanor. All of her opponents seemed passionate about one issue or another. But Clinton seemed largely emotionless and detached, often just mouthing rehearsed answers from her briefing book.

If Hillary Clinton wasn't such a mean woman who hates all her country traditionally stands for, I'd feel very sad for her; as it is, I feel a little of that, but realize that when you try to play things the way she does, this is what you'll often get.

Hillary Clinton, I believe, realizes that she cannot let the American people see what she really thinks, what she really believes. They already see a lot of it, and for those who even casually like traditional America, it scares the daylights out of them. Very few know the real Hillary Clinton, and even she knows that if more did, she wouldn't have the proverbial snowball's chance at the White House.

So she tries to paint herself as this sweet, feminine woman who bakes cookies except when she's definitely NOT baking cookies, and tries to straddle both sides of the fence to make everyone, regardless of their own personal opinions, like her and believe in her. She reminds me of that scene near the end of Terminator 2 where the liquid metal T-1000 terminator falls into the vat of molten steel and keeps changing shapes faster and faster trying to get away from the heat, but in the end can't change fast enough.

What a schizophrenic lifestyle to force yourself to live under! If she weren't such a threat to the America we have known and still know today, I'd deeply pity her. However, since I know without a doubt she would take us down a dark path of misery and destruction, I only hope the American people see her for what she is, and look elsewhere for a candidate.

I don't agree with Obama or Edwards or any of the other Democrat candidates, but at least they, compared to Clinton, have the courage to tell us most of what they believe in. How can people even consider supporting someone for president when they can't even know for sure who they're supporting?


Is Recess Over Yet?

By Carrie K. Hutchens

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am so tired of seeing and hearing about politicians acting like spoiled brats and school yard bullies that I'm rethinking my position on a democracy. Maybe we need to go back to parent-o-cracy and teach some manners and fair play tactics to those who apparently lack these skills. Time-outs seem like a good idea as well, but first maybe we ought to call off recess and require elected officials to act like mature adults, and put their constituents before their personal agendas and selfish wants.

Nancy Pelosi and pals can't seem to take "no" for an answer and too often seem like whining brats. (Full Article)


More Historical Revisionism

From a recent article at WorldNetDaily, it appears the history revisionists have been up to their work again. This time, they tried to erase recognition of the capstone on the top of the Washington Monument which is inscribed with the Latin words "Laus Deo" or "Praise to God."

But rather than be quiet and act too timid to stand up for America's Christian heritage, it looks like 28,000 people contacted the National Park Service and reversed this dastardly deed.

From WorldNetDaily:

The actual 100-ounce aluminum cap on the peak of the 555-foot stone monolith includes engravings on its four sides. Since the inscriptions are not legible from the ground, the Park Service displayed a replica inside the monument but placed the side with "Laus Deo" against a wall so it couldn't be seen.

David Barna, director of communications and public affairs for the Park Service in Washington, told WND the original placement of the replica was a mistake and the concealment of the reference to God wasn't intentional.

He said the Park Service got 28,000 e-mails today raising the issue.

"It was stupid," he told WND. "We're going to fix it.


I might have believed that the placement of the replica capstone in such a way as to hide the words was a mistake. However, when you consider that they also removed the reference to these words in the description on the display...well, I'm not buying that one.




That's pretty conclusive proof that they tried to erase yet another reference to America's Christian heritage, and the fact that the American people have publicly honored God before and since we became a nation.

If you're a secularist, you don't have to like our Christian heritage. But to lie about it and try to erase it is despicable. It's also proof that they know full well the facts aren't on their side.


Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Giuliani Nukes Socialized Medicine

MSNBC talks about Rudy Giuliani's new campaign ad in which he compares our health care system to that of socialized countries.

In Giuliani’s ad, he talks about his bout with prostate cancer and that, in the United States there is an 82 percent survival rate as opposed to England, where the survival rate is only 44 percent with "socialized medicine." He then touts his proposed $15,000 family health-care deduction and $7,500 individual health-care deduction. "We have the best health insurance coverage in the world," Giuliani concludes. "We just have to make it better."

Dead-on, Rudy!

CBS has a clip of the ad you can listen to here.


Drug Use Threatens U.S. Security


I had no idea drug use was getting so serious and so widespread.

From the results of this Zogby poll, the drugs being used are so damaging and so prolific that they even threaten national security:

When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21% would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15% would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14% would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10% said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5%), Democrat John Edwards (4%) and Republican Mitt Romney (3%) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran.


Marxist Oppression is Alive and Well


When someone points to the terrible, logical conclusion of Marxism, others like to mock and make fun. Reminiscent of "The Screwtape Letters, they like to pretend and make others believe that to condemn Marxism is to condemn a long-dead thing, or perhaps something that never really existed in the first place.

For those who fall into this camp of mockers, I'd like to draw your attention to something: though the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) is no more, that demon you deny is alive and well in other parts of the world.

Today's Washington Times examines the story of Shin Dong-hyuk, who escaped from the "workers paradise" of North Korea where it is believed that more than 200,000 people are imprisoned for being politically incorrect.

Mr. Shin's mother was imprisoned in "Total Control Camp No. 14" in central North Korea, for political crimes. As reward for good work, she was allowed to marry. The couple's "honeymoon" was five nights together before being separated again. Mr. Shin was born in 1982.

There was no maternal affection: The camp's 40,000 to 60,000 inmates were indoctrinated to spy on each other, including family members. His earliest memory is of following his mother to the camp farm to work; he has no recollection of being embraced.

After a failed escape attempt, Shin was tortured by hanging him over a fire and hitting him in the groin with a hook.
After seven months, Mr. Shin was released to witness his mother's hanging and his brother's execution by shooting. Mr. Shin noticed his father in tears, but he had only one emotion: "I was furious with them; as a result of their crimes, I was subject to torture."

Life continued. His niece was raped and killed by guards. He dropped a sewing machine; guards chopped off a fingertip with a knife. Constantly hungry, he once found three corn kernels in a pile of cow manure, his "lucky day." Unaware of any world beyond the wire, his dreams were to excel at work, gain permission to marry or become a team leader.

All forms of Marxism, whether they be socialism or communism (it's been said that a communist is just a socialist who's in a hurry), when taken to their logical conclusion, inevitably end in the gulag or the firing squad for those who won't agree with the herd.

For the human spirit is too rebellious, in both good and bad ways, to conform to the impractical idealism of Marxism.

The fallen nature of humans will compel some in such an egalitarian society to do as little as possible while reaping the fruits of the labors of others. This inevitable proves a drag on productivity, and a lethal dose of morphine to the human spirit.

And the nobility and God-given sense of justice in the human spirit will rebel against being robbed of the fruits of his labors, and will rebel against being forced by law (for example, can you say "hate crimes"?) to think or not think a certain way, or be denied his inalienable right of free speech.

It's a pity that so many in the free world mock and deny the logical conclusion of where this road leads. They share in the guilt for the suffering of countless millions.


Ninja Parade Slips Through Town Unnoticed Once Again


Ninja Parade Slips Through Town Unnoticed Once Again


Clinton Video Impact Will Be Decided by the Public

By Carrie K. Hutchens

I remember when the scandal came out that Bill Clinton had engaged in sexual activity with an aide, and he was denying it. Many people I have talked with felt that what transpired was between Bill and Hillary...until Bill lied to them (members of the public) by saying he hadn't had sex with Monica, and until he lied under oath. That's when these people became outraged. After all, Bill didn't have to lie. He could have said it was a private matter between him and his wife, but he opted to lie instead. Worse, he lied under oath. He was guilty of perjury and got away with it. (Full Article)


Monday, October 29, 2007

Missouri Gov Calls for Abortion Task Force

According to LifeNews.com, Missouri will be taking a closer look at how abortion harms women.

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt has called for a new state task force to examine the myriad of ways abortions hurts women by causing either medical, mental health or other problems. Blunt has put together the Governor's Task Force on the Impact of Abortion on Women at a time when abortion advocates say abortion benefits women.

Recall that we in South Dakota had a task force look at this in 2005. They'll undoubtedly contend with similar pro-abortion folks who will try to tell them what a wonderful, helpful thing abortion is, but I'm sure it'll be as transparently false in Missouri as it was here.

I would venture they'll probably reach similar findings to what we found in South Dakota: that abortion not only ends a human life in the womb, but leaves women physically and emotionally scarred for life.


Huckabee: 'Pro-Life, Pro-Gun Liberal'


The Washington Times has an article today on the growing awareness--and discontent--over Mike Huckabee's liberal record.

"We called him a pro-life, pro-gun liberal, when I was in the state legislature and he was governor," said Randy Minton, chairman of the Arkansas chapter of Phyllis Schlafly's national Eagle Forum.


Mr. Minton voices the concerns of many conservatives that while Mr. Huckabee governed as a social conservative in opposing abortion and same-sex "marriage," he was a treacherous liberal on taxes, social welfare spending and illegal immigration.


Not exactly a ringing endorsement from a conservative organization.

More on Huckabee's liberal bent on immigration:

"Rudy Giuliani spent years defending the right of New York City to remain asanctuary for illegal aliens. Yet Giuliani was a veritable Lou Dobbs Jr. on illegal immigration in comparison to Mike Huckabee," said Jim Boulet Jr., executive director of English First, a Springfield, Va., lobbying group. Mr. Dobbs is a CNN commentator who pursues a tough line against amnesty for illegal
aliens.

"Huckabee's principles regarding illegal immigration seem to vary depending upon his physical location," Mr. Boulet said. "When in Iowa, presidential candidate Huckabee talks tough on border security. But for years in Arkansas, Governor Huckabee talked even tougher when anyone dared complain about the costs of illegal immigration."


I sympathize with those on the Right who fear the unspeakable damage that a second Clinton administration could do to this country.

But while Huckabee is more palatable than Giuliani because Huckabee is at least pro-life and pro-marriage, why settle for half of a conservative? We don't need to settle for this.

There is still time before the primaries for conservatives to get behind a TRUE conservative. Why do conservatives continue to shoot themselves in the foot? Why do conservatives continue to stand in fear of and be intimidated by the "mainstream" media and other elites? Why do conservatives continue to settle for a pale imitation of what this country needs?

I'm beginning to wonder if conservatives have some kind of "Battered Voter Syndrome" where they seem to think they can't do any better than the candidate who panders to them when he wants something, and then "steps out" on them once he's got it. Many conservatives seem so desperate for affection and the illusion of security that they'll ignore a suitor's past behavior as long as he'll pretend he loves them.

We don't need to settle for a liberal on immigration, taxes, big government and the welfare state, just so we can get a pro-life pro-marriage candidate. Not when there are excellent, across-the-board conservative candidates like Rep. Tom Tancredo and Rep. Duncan Hunter.

Conservatives need to stop wallowing in victimhood and start acting like they want to see their values carried out in government. If we think we can't do better than a pseudo-conservative, guess what: we WON'T do better than a pseudo-conservative. We've had plenty of those; we don't need another one.


The epic of the outhouse and Halloween as seen by a teenager of many years ago

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: Halloween is an age-old custom that is observed on the eve of All Saints' Day. Dressing up in weird costumes has been a part of this observance, Halloween, not All Saints' Day for about as long as the festivity has been in the history books. However, there were other customs connected with the day, or I should say "night," say 50 to 100 years ago that kids today just don't have any of the contraptions left for them to tip over. Halloween just isn't the same today as it was then....

THE STATUTE OF limitations, I'm sure, probably will protect me for today's column, but I want to make it perfectly clear that a good share of what I am telling came from research and not from personal experience. (Full Article)


 
Clicky Web Analytics