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, September 20, 2008

Charlie Gibson's Holy War

As Newt Gingrich pointed out at the Values Voter Summit a little more than a week ago, so this video points out that Charlie Gibson's incredulity and disdain for Governor Sarah Palin's prayer for our troops is, well, not really anything new. In fact, a number of liberal Democrat presidents have made similar entreaties to God on behalf of our troops.

What is relatively new in our country is the overt Leftist hostility and displays of repugnance for the Christian faith held by the majority of Americans, and the fact that many Christians might dare take their faith so seriously as to actually live it out.

Watch this video to hear in their own voices the words of Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt praying for the troops and for God's guiding and providence for those troops, and the words of Abraham Lincoln read.

HT to Fort Hard Knox.


Palin Isn't the Right Kind of Feminist

This is a look on the O'Reilly Factor at the feminist hatred of Governor Sarah Palin.

Palin is a successful woman, so why don't feminists love her? Because she's not their kind of successful woman, i.e. she's not a pro-abortion zealot.


The Obama Chronicles, Part 3

A "no spin" look at the life of Barack Obama.

In Part 3, a look at Obama's mentors.


Florida Preparing to Defend Marriage

People in the Sunshine State will get the chance to define marriage as between one man and one woman this fall.


Real crisis is loss of American principles

BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

My sense is that the attention that most Americans are paying as the power brokers of our government re-mold our future is not too deep.

Sure, we're watching to see which Wall Street firm emerges as the basket case du jour.

And the 50 percent or so of us who own stocks in some form are paying attention to the impact that each major announcement has on the market and on our nest eggs.

But beyond this, it's like watching the mechanic play around under the hood of your car. You stand by with your fingers crossed hoping that he knows what he's doing and that the price tag of the damage won't ruin you.

What's bothering me today, and what I think should bother you, is not only don't we understand exactly what these guys are doing as they play with our economic engine, but few are asking what authority they have to be playing around in there in the first place.

Talking about Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, the Wall Street Journal reports "Today he finds himself in a position of power unmatched by his predecessors. He decides whether Wall Street firms live or die, picking winners and losers with the power of the federal purse."

Somehow the idea of our Treasury Secretary sitting like a Roman emperor, giving a thumbs up or down whether firm A or firm B will live or die, just doesn't wash with the basic principles of how I believe this country is supposed to work.

The "power of the federal purse" is a nice abstract way of saying there is open season on citizens and taxpayers. We are the federal purse.

Somehow we have gotten to the point where we citizens have been written out of the equation of our own country and Constitution. Paulson can decide to commit billions of our money -- you know, what we work for every day, save, and assume we own -- to play lifeguard and we don't even get a courtesy call asking if its okay.

So I ask, is this the disease pretending to be the cure?

There is, of course, a lot of discussion about the causes of today's financial turmoil.

It may be politically expedient to blame greedy Wall Street executives. And I have no doubt there's plenty of greed on Wall Street (or in Hollywood or elsewhere for that matter).

But as unattractive as greedy behavior may be, greed is not illegal.

I have not heard a single announcement about any Wall Street executive being indicted or about any law being broken.

But somehow it is legal and constitutional in America today, our dear country that supposedly has a Constitution that protects citizens and private property, for our private wealth and incomes to be used by politicians as collateral for their social engineering.

As we taxpayers get dragged up to the plate to bail out one firm or another, let's recall that major culprits in all of this were the two massive Government Sponsored Enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Dressed in drag as private firms, they wheeled and dealed, getting involved in some way in one of every two mortgages, with us taxpayers behind the scenes guaranteeing their excesses.

Did we learn anything from the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Did we learn that taxpayer guarantees for business is a formula for failure?

How can we say we learned anything if this is exactly what we are doing now to deal with the problems that this very behavior caused to begin with?

In a nice column in the New York Times the other day, David Leonhardt recalls the bailout of Chrysler in 1979. This was supposedly a success. And where is Chrysler today? And the whole American auto industry? Eclipsed by the Japanese and looking for another bailout.

Today's financial crisis is not the worst problem we have. America has survived many crises, some far, far worse than this.

Our most serious problem is a loss of focus on American principles of freedom and limited constitutional government.

It's a sign of our troubled times that there appears to be no leader -- political or business -- who even pays lip service to this.

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.


Friday, September 19, 2008

A Liberal Defends Marriage and Children

I seldom encounter an article that offers fresh perspective and insight on the issues of marriage, family and sexuality. That is true in conservative media, but especially in the "mainstream" media.

I was surprised by an article entitled "Protecting marriage to protect children" by David Blankenhorn in the LA Times today.

Frankly it's astonishing that a liberal could hold the kind of morality, honesty and insight displayed in this article and still call himself a liberal, but okay.

Blankenhorn calls himself a liberal Democrat who does not favor homosexual "marriage." He says he has spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage and has come up with a conclusion very different than most liberals.

He says that he found in his studies that marriage is not really a license to have sex, receive benefits or attain recognition, but is primarily a license to have children.

While that may initially sound shocking and a bit incredulous--even to pro-family ears--he has a point. To get a license to drive, one must demonstrate that they are serious about driving properly and respecting public safety. It is therefore not a stretch to realize that (ignoring for a moment the biological ability to circumvent the proper "licensing" mechanism) in order to be properly licensed by society to produce and raise children, one should be required to demonstrate that they are serious about establishing a proper, healthy, stable environment for those children, and that they are serious about protecting public safety through their parenting. Few observant people would disagree that improperly parented children are a threat to public safety and welfare.

Blankenhorn does an admirable job of defining an institution so basic and fundamental to human existence that it can be hard to put into practical terms:

Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

Blankenhorn cites philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell in pointing out the interest the state has in preserving marriage:
"it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

He also points to research, such as that from Child Trends, which shows the value and importance the marriage of a man and a woman has to children:
"family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

Many studies have shown that an intact two-parent home with both mother and father present provides tremendous advantages to children compared to children without: better mental health, better emotional stability, better behavior, greater academic achievement and less poverty.

Blankenhorn says that even the ultra-liberal U.N. recognizes that "insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world."

What about the same-sex home?
Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

Did you get that? While heterosexuals frequently mess up and leave children deprived of what they need and deserve, every single one of the homosexual homes will intentionally deprive the child of a father or mother--and will compound the injury by calling it something to "celebrate."

While Blankenhorn is definitely not anti-homosexual or even anti-homosexuality, he nevertheless has the intellectual honesty to see and admit the devastating consequences of undermining marriage.

For that, I commend him. And pray that others may listen to him.


Biden, Pelosi Determined to Turn Catholics Away From DNC

Joe Biden loses Barack Obama the Catholic vote
More, as promised, on Senator Joe Biden (why should Sarah Palin get all the coverage?). Remember, you read it here first: on September 11 this blog reported a mounting backlash from Catholic bishops against Biden, Barack Obama's "Catholic" pro-abortion running mate. At that time I estimated eight bishops had come out to denounce Biden; the total is now 55. Beyond that, Biden is being trashed across every state of the Union by Catholic newspapers, TV and radio stations, and blogs. It is a tsunami of rejection.


Joe Biden has really put his foot in it with the Catholics
The story has now hit the secular media. Last Saturday Time magazine asked: "Does Biden Have a Catholic Problem?" By Wednesday the issue had moved onto the front page of the New York Times. Joe the Jinx has blown it, big time. Biden has only himself to blame: he started this war, with his notoriously undisciplined mouth. He knew the dangers. Last August, Archbishop Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St Louis and now Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura in Rome, said communion should be denied to pro-abortion politicians "until they have reformed their lives". London Telegraph


The Roman Catholic Church of the 1970s and '80s, infused with liberalism on almost all social issues, has been harshly shaken from its smug complacency by scandals and shrinking attendance. The ascendancy of two relatively conservative Popes, both loved and admired by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, has advanced doctrinal conservatism and has caused many in the Church leadership to become less tolerant of doctrinal apostasy. American bishops are saying enough is enough. Support Church doctrine or quit calling yourself a Catholic.

Theologically conservative Christians of all denominations, as well as many Jews, applaud the bishops in their willingness to stand for what is morally right and see in these politicians moral inconsistencies that cause some to wonder about their veracity and sincerity on other issues. Pelosi, Biden, et al may be shoring-up their political base but are turning away a huge constituency that once was owned by Democrats.


Definition of Monogamy Very Loose in Homosexual Community

An article in Psychology Today by Joe Kort illustrates not only the chaos and instability common to most homosexual relationships, but also the fact that every assertion of normality by homosexual activists must be parsed very closely to determine the exact nature of the claims being made.

Kort tells of his learning experience about so-called monogamy in homosexual culture:

I've wanted to write an article on this topic ever since I began working with a gay male couple who told me that they were monogamous. After several months, however, they informed me they had had a three-way. When I asked if they had changed from monogamy, they said, "No."

I was confused. Maybe I hadn't gotten the correct information in our initial consultation? I told them, "I thought you told me you were monogamous," and they said, "We are." Now I was REALLY confused! So I said, "But you just told me you were monogamous."

Their reply was, "We are monogamous. We only have three-ways together, and are never sexual with others apart from each other." Okay, now I was slowly getting it.

I quickly learned to ask what a couple means when they say they're monogamous.

I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that some people would call a situation that is definitely non-monogamous "monogamy" when many of these same people insist a practice is normal, natural and healthy even though it violates the obvious function and use of body parts, takes place in only 2.9% of the population, and involves higher risks of health threats like AIDS, STDs, hepatitis, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence.

It also shouldn't be a surprise that people who would redefine marriage--something obviously between a man and a woman--to encompass two men or two women, would also define monogamy as including relationships with third, fourth, fifth or whatever parties.

This article is obviously not a good standard for reinforcing the obvious immorality and unhealthiness of homosexual relationships, since it takes a decidedly nonjudgmental tone throughout, but the momentary glimpses of the reality of homosexual relationships is enlightening.

Mention is made also of another source pointing to the low rate of monogamy in homosexual relationships:
In his book, The Soul Beneath the Skin, David Nimmons cites numerous studies which show that 75% of gay male couples are in successful open relationships.

This coincides with other studies such as a Canadian one that found only 25% of homosexual relationships more than one year old were monogamous. Other studies have found the monogamy rate drops below 5% by the time the relationship is 10-15 years old. The Handbook of Family Diversity also found that many self-described monogamous homosexual relationships reported an average of 3-5 outside partners in the previous year.

These figures also beg the question of whether even the figures cited in the Canadian study and in Nimmons book may be overstated, given the "loose" definition of monogamy in the homosexual community.

Monogamy is essentially like pregnancy: you can't be a little bit pregnant. Either you are monogamous, or you aren't.

And if you aren't, then you run the risk of bringing disease into the relationship with your regular sex partner.

This issue also touches on the issue of allowing homosexuals to call their unions "marriage" and on adoptions by homosexuals.

Do we want children not only intentionally deprived of a mother or father, but also exposed to the sexual and relational chaos of the typical homosexual relationship? Do we want to place children in homes where the adults take such irresponsible risks with their own health--further threatening the short-term and long-term stability of the children?

I think any sane person would have to answer: no way.


On Tough Issues, Obama is 'Present'

Barack Obama: Taking a firm stand on not taking a firm stand.


The Obama Chronicles Part 2

From the O'Reilly Factor, a "no spin" look at Barack Obama.

Part two examines "Who is Michelle Obama?"


Lien Ad Calls for Congress to Get to Work

This is Republican U.S. House of Representatives candidate Chris Lien, calling for congress to get back to work for the American people



Chris Lien is running for U.S. House against Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin and has been traveling across the state of South Dakota in search of solutions to the problems in Washington. A Rapid City native of 4 generations, Lien seeks to bring a strong business background and leadership to a broken Congress. This is the first of the TV commercials the campaign will run.


The Obama Chronicles Part 1

From the O'Reilly Factor, a "no spin" look at Barack Obama.

Part one examines Obama's parents


Philanthropy as a Vehicle for Political Promotion


Interesting letter in the Letters to the Editor of the Rapid City Journal today:

‘Thank you’ dinner quickly became a paid political event

I recently attended a “thank you” dinner for those who volunteered for the John Paul II exhibit. The event was sponsored by Stan Adelstein and was to be an opportunity for volunteers to share their experiences. The political campaign comments made by Brian Hagg, Stan’s campaign manager, did not appear, in my opinion, to have happened spontaneously. At that point, it seemed to me that the “thank you” dinner event became a paid political event.

DIANE ANGE
Rapid City

I've often wondered how many votes Stan Adelstein's "philanthropy" can buy, and this dinner may provide some answer.

The best philanthropy is that which is done low-key and not for public recognition but because of a genuine concern for the beneficiary.

The question of how many votes philanthropy can buy also crossed my mind last week when I saw a rather large booklet promoting Stan Adelstein and all the causes he's given to. This "Adelstein accolades" booklet (I don't recall, but I think it was at least 10-20 pages long, in color) was paid for by the Republican Party. It is my understanding that this huge booklet was sent through the mail to the voters of District 32--which would amount to a hefty postage bill in addition to the printing cost.

I also wondered how many tossed out cookies--and ladies bearing those cookies--went to pay for that booklet.

Most people are usually able to see through someone who performs acts of benevolence as veiled acts of self-promotion. Maybe I'm wrong about my suspicions here, and Adelstein is genuinely a selfless man who cares deeply about the community.

Either way, my hope is that the voters of District 32 will see the truth for what it really is--and vote accordingly.


NewsBusted Conservative Comedy 9/19/2008

Is Sarah Palin helping GOP in congressional races? CNN repeats rumors about Sara Palin it had already debunked THC, the marijuana chemical may be effective as an antibacterial agent Musician Sarah McLachlan splits from her hubby Starring: Jodi Miller Director: Bruce Roundtower Executive Producer: Matthew Sheffield NewsBusted is a comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday.


Obama and Biden: Making More Patriots

See how Barack Obama and Joe Biden "foster patriotism."



Morality is a Necessary Spring of Popular Government

American Minute from William J. Federer

The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolken tells of man's lust for "the ring of power." George Washington had that power and twice gave it up.

When King George III asked American-born painter Benjamin West what Washington planned to do now that he had won the war, West replied "They say he will return to his farm." King George said "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."

Washington later served as President and again returned to his farm, similar to Roman leader Cincinnatus, who twice led Rome's Republic to victory in battle then returned to farming.

On SEPTEMBER 19, 1796, the world stood in awe as President George Washington delivered his Farewell Address, stating: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars...Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."

George Washington ended: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle...Morality is a necessary spring of popular government...Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation?"

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.


Video: Sarah Palin Interview with Sean Hannity

In case you missed it, here are parts 1 and 2 of Sean Hannity's recent interview with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Notice the absence of elitist arrogance on the part of the interviewer, and the lack of glasses on the end of the nose as an amplifier of said elitist arrogance.

Part 1





Part 2




The Link Between Parental Involvement and Scholastic Achievement

This report from the Heritage Foundation highlights findings which reinforce what I've been saying for years: parental involvement is the greatest determiner of a child's academic success.

Findings include: preschoolers score higher with greater parental involvement, positive relationships between kindergartners and their mothers produces better behavior and better middle school performance, father's involvement results in greater achievement even when controlling for mother's involvement...and these positive effects are lasting.

Want to improve our schools and the academic achievement in our schools? Instead of throwing (taxpayer) money at the education system, why not promote greater parental engagement and involvement with their own children?

Or is that too much trouble?



Each month, familyfacts.org explores an area of academic research on a topic related to the family and religion. Septembers findings highlight the positive link between parental involvement and childrens educational outcomes.


Arizona Marriage Amendment Entering the Homestretch

As the election nears, three states prepare to vote on marriage between one man and one woman. We take a look at the efforts, starting with Arizona.



Capitalists for Abortion?


Seldom do I come across an example where something is advocated under the auspices of capitalism that is as bad or worse than Marxism. This is one of those exceptional times.

Newsbusters points to a piece by Nicholas Provenzo at the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism which says touts the morality of killing children who aren't perfect.

The article specifically cites Trig, the Palin baby who was Down syndrome, as an example where the parents should have killed the baby in the womb because Trig is "only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision." Provenzo says the Palin's are being selfish because they are "essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others."

This really isn't that different than the reason many if not most abortions are done: to protect the lifestyle of the mother and/or father aborting the child. After all, the latest statistics from the South Dakota Department of Health show that the largest reasons by far given for killing unborn children is that they "couldn't afford" the child (as if parents during the Great Depression could afford their children) or that the mother just "didn't want the child."

The only thing surprising about this piece, really, is that it is found at an organization which, by its very name, is dedicated to the advancement of capitalism.

While capitalism is about the growth of business and wealth, traditional capitalism is NOT, because traditional capitalism is grounded in the Christian work ethic--which is a part of the Christian worldview which recognizes human life as being created in the image of God, and therefore is sacred.

It should be noted that Provenzo's philosophy is, as Newsbusters points out, more "objectivism" than traditional capitalism. Those familiar with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged will recognize objectivism as a philosophy which takes good and healthy things (individualism, personal responsibility, freedom, capitalism, etc.) to radical extremes to form a perverted philosophy of self-centeredness and moral autonomy. In objectivism, personal achievement and personal happiness are considered a high moral purpose in themselves.

In the end, it's nothing more than repackaged selfishness which is willing to sacrifice others on the altar of self-fulfillment.

In this case, we hear it coming from a different source than usual, but it's the same old sin that would rather end another person's life if that life threatens their own self actualization plan.


Family Champion Award to Arizona Marriage Defender

Cathi Herrod with the Center for Arizona Policy was recognized by Focus on the Family Action at a luncheon held in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 12. She has been remarkably diligent in getting an amendment to protect marriage on the ballot in November.



Thursday, September 18, 2008

Parents Can't Be Trusted With Children

A funny look at the education system in Great Britain.

England is a bit further down the road of socialism than we are here in the States, so you can see shadows--and a bit more--of the same debates and the same insanity here.

And the same elitist snobbery.

HT to Fort Hard Knox.




Shedding a Biblical Light on Governors and Community Organizers

Stuart Shepard and Tom Minnery discuss a phrase being used to disparage vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, as well as what "community organizer" really means.




Bad Advice, Bad Instincts, Bad Barack

The latest from the McCain*Palin 2008 campaign:



If a Woman's Belly Were Transparent...

Good question over at the VoteYesForLife.com blog:

If a woman’s belly were transparent, would abortion still be legal?


New Study Finds Politial Correctness Distorts Polls

Frank Schubert, president of Schubert Flint Public Affairs and campaign manager for ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, has announced a new study which finds support for the protection of marriage has been underestimated in polling in almost every instance.

Said Schubert

"For example, the Field Poll showed that support for Proposition 22 in 2000 was at 53% right before the election, yet over 61% of voters supported the proposition."

According to a press release from the ProtectMarriage.com
The study looked at the same-sex marriage issue in 26 states where it has appeared on the ballot, going back to the first such campaign in Hawaii in 1998. Surveys published by news media outlets before an election under-estimated support for traditional marriage by an average of seven points. In only two states (Texas and South Carolina) did pre-election surveys accurately measure voter support for traditional marriage, and in both of those states support stood at 76%. Support for traditional marriage was under-estimated in 23 of the 26 states studied, ranging from a low of three points in Kentucky and Oregon, to as high as 21 points in North Dakota. Support for traditional marriage in California was under-estimated by eight points in 2000. In only one case, Arizona, did support for traditional marriage drop (by three points).

Schubert said, "I can't say for sure why polls almost always understate support for traditional marriage, but I believe it is because the media portrays same-sex marriage as being politically correct. Supporters of traditional marriage don't want pollsters to consider them intolerant, so they mask their true feelings on the issue. The result is that support for traditional marriage rises considerably when voters cast their ballots in the privacy of the voter booth. It is my opinion that the same thing will happen in California when voters cast ballots on Proposition 8."

This is very similar to what I have said about this and many other issues--and conservative candidates--for some time.

Polls can often give distorted results, either by negligence on the part of the pollsters, or by design. The wording of questions can have a lot to do with the average response, and when the survey is conducted by phone or in person, the tone and inflection of the pollster asking the question can also have an effect.

While many people can be relied on to give their opinion regardless of what they perceive is the "right answer," many average people are aware of political correctness and what the elite believe is the "proper" opinion. So when pollsters ask questions, many respondents want to "give the right answer" or seem "informed" or want to look "smart" in the eyes of the pollster.

Yet when they enter the privacy and anonymity of the voting booth, they often go with their real opinion.

We have seen this effect played out numerous times as conservative initiatives are portrayed as "doomed" in the media and their polls, yet pass handily on election day. Conservative candidates also often generate "surprise" wins that go against liberal "wisdom." Remember how surprised the "mainstream" media was when George W. Bush pulled out a win in 2004?

The "mainstream" media counts on that herd instinct to kick in, so they release biased and slanted poll results so that voters will understand which direction the herd is going...and hopefully join the herd there. But it doesn't always work.

Let's hope that is the case in California in November. With the efforts of the pro-homosexual liberal establishment in California to stack the deck against the marriage protection amendment, marriage supporters are swimming upstream.


Pro-Abortion Senator Admits: Pregnant Woman Carries a Child

So is it a child or just a blastocyst? Pro-abortion folks try to get our minds off the fact that the contents of the pregnant woman's womb is a child by calling it a "blastocyst" or some such obfuscatory term

But do they really believe the propaganda they're foisting on the public...or do they really understand what's at stake?

LifeSiteNews reports that Senator Barbara Boxer made an interesting admission during discussion in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about counting the dollar value assigned to human life as a consequence of EPA decisions.

Despite the fact that at other times Boxer has denied the humanity of the unborn child, and that pregnant women are even carrying a child, Boxer said something different in the committee meeting:

At one point during the meeting, Boxer said, in reference to pregnant women, "You can talk about it any way you want, but she's carrying a child." A second time she said, "I would just like to state the obvious. When a woman is pregnant, and I was, you're carrying a child and if you protect the pregnant woman, you're protecting that whole entire pregnancy."

Being the strong abortion supporter that she is, I'm sure Boxer simply meant that if the woman wants the child, then it's a child.

Otherwise it's just a blastocyst.

Perfectly logical in the liberal world.


The Moral Test of a Marxist

After I picked myself up from the floor and wiped my eyes after laughing and crying so hard, I thought I'd take a more serious look at the comments of Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) that Republicans "do not meet the moral test."

From The Politico:

“To be frank about it,” he said, “I think the Republicans, frankly, in many ways, have not — do not meet the moral test” when it comes to voting in the Senate. “And we see that in programs like children’s health insurance,” he went on. “This president, who is a man of faith, would go ahead and veto a program that was intended to provide health insurance to 9 million children.”

My laughter is not to say that Republicans are a bunch of choirboys who are perfectly moral...or even as a whole represent a good moral model.

But when you consider that the Democrat Party largely stands for killing unborn children, homosexuality, undermining marriage, and government theft, well...

Anyway, if we accept that Senator Salazar is being serious here, and not just trying to fool the most stupid among us or to make us all laugh hysterically, and he really means what he says, this comment illustrates the moral and philosophical divide between liberals and conservatives in this country.

Accepting this comment at face value, Salazar apparently considers it a moral act to empower government to take money from one person and give it to another person without the consent of the first person.

All government acts should, ideally, be moral acts. While acknowledging that all too often today they are not, ideally they should conform to law and morality.

It is therefore highly ironic that Salazar would consider government theft and wealth redistribution "moral" when there is no Biblical grounds for such actions. The Bible encourages people to help one another, but I've never found the place in the Bible where God says government should take money from one person against their will and give it to another. And I've looked.

It also seems highly ironic that, regardless of whether one reveres the Bible or not, that Salazar would consider such an act legal or in keeping with the principles of American government or Americanism when there is nothing in the United States Constitution to authorize such government theft and wealth redistribution, either.

Call me silly, but I, like James Madison, "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."

And I've looked.


Universal Healthcare? Is This What Americans Want?

From the London Telegraph we have news of a proposed solution to the soaring costs of "free" healthcare. I suppose that it is true that dead people cause little financial strain on the medical system. Huge savings can certainly be realized by adopting such a plan, but think what additional savings are possible if it can be expanded to include the mentally ill, the lazy, the drug addicts, people with AIDS and other chronic and incurable diseases and other non-productive or otherwise worthless individuals. The mind boggles! Why, the Brits may actually begin to treat some acute life-threatening diseases before the patients die of natural causes!

Baroness Warnock: Dementia sufferers may have a 'duty to die'

Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families, according to the influential medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock.

By Martin Beckford Social Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 10:42PM BST 18 Sep 2008
The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.
She insisted there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.
The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves.

Universal healthcare could become a reality in America if the Democrats are successful in November. I was hoping to cut down my work from two full-time jobs to maybe one and a half, but I'm going to have to re-think that. I don't want to risk being thought of as lazy or non-productive.


Biden's Big Brother Forced Patriotic Charity

Now if this isn't Orwellian: Joe Biden says it's patriotic to force wealthy people to pay higher taxes.

Planet Earth to Biden: when you force someone to do something, there's nothing particularly commendable in their compliance.

From CNS News:

"It's time to be patriotic,” Biden said. “Time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut. And the way to do that is -- they’re still going to pay less taxes than they paid under Reagan.”

I think Biden really understands...and just wants to put lipstick on the pig that is a Marxist progressive tax system.

Patriotism is something done willingly and from the heart; it cannot be enforced, even if acts deemed "patriotic" can be forced.

The same is true of charity and "compassion." Giving of one's wealth and possessions in the name of love and compassion is something done willingly and from the heart. It blesses the one giving and the one receiving.

Indeed, many of the wealthy in our country already do give--even above what they are already gouged for taxes. In fact, Christians and conservatives give far more to charity than those who advocate forced "charity."

Our current Marxist tax system, which forces everyone to give money to others who may or may not deserve it, and penalizes the wealthy for their success and hard work, is a pathetic travesty of justice that blesses no one. People have no choice whether to give or not, and their money is often given to people who do not deserve it--indeed, that largess often enables the recipient to continue in unhealthy or even destructive lifestyles.

If Joe Biden truly wanted to foster patriotic giving, he would advocate a return to our country's historic values: limited government, enumerated powers, personal responsibility, and community service and philanthropy given freely to those genuinely needy.


A Duty to Testify Publicly

American Minute from William J. Federer

A member of the Continental Congress, he led military expeditions during the Revolutionary War, paying for them at his own expense. He built ships to raid the British, signed the Constitution and was the first President pro tem of the Senate. His name was John Langdon, and he died SEPTEMBER 18, 1819.

As Governor of New Hampshire, John Langdon was visited by President James Monroe in 1817, as the newspaper reported: "While at Portsmouth, the President spent that part of the Sabbath which was not devoted to public divine service, with that eminent patriot and Christian, John Langdon. His tarry...was probably longer than the time devoted to any individual in New England."

A founder and first President of the New Hampshire Bible Society, whose goal was to put a Bible in every New Hampshire home, Governor John Langdon wrote in a Proclamation, October 21, 1785: "It therefore becomes our indispensable Duty, not only to acknowledge, in general with the rest of Mankind, our dependence on the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, but as a People peculiarly favoured, to testify our Gratitude to the Author of all our Mercies, in the most solemn and public manner."

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.


Obama DOES Support Sex Ed for Kindergartners

While the Guardians of Truth in the "mainstream" media have declared false the assertion that Barack Obama supported sex ed for kindergartners, the truth that the rest of the world understands tells a different story.

When the bill in question was examined, it was found to read

"any of grades K-12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

Hmmm...sounds like more than just "don't talk to strangers" to me.

According to Brit Hume's Political Grapevine, Byron York at the National Review writes, "The 'touching' provision did not have the prominence that team Obama has suggested it had, and certainly wasn't the bill's main purpose."

Barack Obama is a liberal social engineer of the highest order. For every reason in the book, this man cannot be trusted at the helm of our great nation

From TheRiteWing



Pro-Lifers Arrested in People's Republic of Maryland

There is considerable debate within the pro-life community as to whether shocking photos of the reality of abortion do more harm than good for the pro-life message.

Some believe such ghastly images turn people off toward the pro-life message, while others believe the horrible reality of abortion needs to be faced by society--and say that people have told them that these images have convinced them to oppose abortion.

Regardless, according to this video, it seems our government--built on the First Amendment--is getting into the business of "approved speech" and "disapproved speech."

This video says the Alliance Defense Fund is defending the pro-lifers here, and since the ADF has won at least 3 out of 4 cases they pursue, it's a good bet they're going to win here.



The Shadow of Big Government

This is the latest McCain ad. Government casts too big a shadow already; if Barack Obama gets a chance at the helm, it will darken everything we do.



Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Another Hillary Supporter Comes Out for McCain

CNN reports another Hillary Clinton supporter is defecting from the Democrats and supporting John McCain.

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday

Forester raised at least $100,000 for Hillary, but can't stand Barack Obama:
“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him,” she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.”

This is the second prominent Hillary supporter who has thrown in with McCain. Earlier this month, John Coale, a prominent Washington lawyer and husband of Fox TV host Greta Van Susteren announced his support for McCain because the MoveOn.org wackos are taking over the Democrat Party, he says.

How many more Democrats will desert? The next six weeks will certainly tell...


British Study: Homosexuality Increases Risk of Depression, Suicide

A new British study by researchers at University College London, St Pancras Hospital and the Medical Research Council has found that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to experience depression and substance abuse than the general population.

According to LifeSiteNews:

After analyzing 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health, researchers, in a study published in the medical journal BMC Psychiatry, also revealed that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

The article also points out that while some try to lay blame for these psychological problems at the feet of "intolerance," homosexuals exhibit the same symptoms in environments where homosexuality is tolerated and accepted.

When we live our lives in a habitually immoral manner that strains the conscience, mental and emotional problems usually ensue.

Instead of encouraging people to live in homosexual lifestyles, if we really cared about them, we would be making the dangers known (as we do with drug use and other dangerous behaviors) and encouraging them to live healthy, positive lifestyles.

Instead, we embrace our own cowardice as we embrace homosexuality because we're too afraid to be thought of as the "bad guy."


The Foundation of the U.S. Constitution

American Minute from William J. Federer

"Done...the SEVENTEENTH DAY of SEPTEMBER, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven." This is the last line of the U.S. Constitution.

A study by Professors Donald S. Lutz and Charles S. Hyneman, titled "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late 18th-Century American Political Thought" published in American Political Science Review, 1984, revealed that after examining nearly 15,000 writings of the 55 writers of the Constitution, including newspaper articles, pamphlets, books and monographs, that the Bible, especially the book of Deuteronomy, contributed 34 percent of all direct quotes made by the Founders.

When indirect Bible citations were included, the percentage rose even higher.

Presiding over the Constitutional Convention was George Washington, who wrote ten days after his Presidential Inauguration to the United Baptist Churches of Virginia, May 10, 1789: "If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical Society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it."

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.


Constitution Week - The Bill of Rights

Adopted 1791, these are the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.


Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 3

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment 7

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Constitution Week - The Preamble

I know the "mainstream" media has been all over the start of Constitution Week, celebrating the U.S. Constitution, but in case you missed it, here is a link to the text of the U.S. Constitution.

This is the preamble to our nation's governing document:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Video Interview with Todd Palin, First Dude of Alaska

Part 1




Part 2



Part 3



Part 4



Part 5



Part 6


Values Voter Summit Energizes

From CitizenLink: More than 2,100 people assembled in Washington, D.C., over the weekend to hear from pro-family leaders. Stuart Shepard shares highlights.




Obama Cites Job Domestic Terrorist Gave Him as Qualification

Amazing Video Found of Obama saying the job Ayers gave him is one of his major qualifications for political office. In this video he also calls Rev Meeks and Father Pfleger friends. A must see.

The video also lays out the argument that Ayers gave an unqualified Obama the jobs that allowed Obama to buy his way into public office.




Missouri's "Too Fat to Adopt Man" Faces Losing More Than Weight

By Carrie K. Hutchens

Gary and Cynthia Stocklaufer went through a horrendous and wrongful battle to regain custody of the baby entrusted to them by a relative and stolen from them by the system in Missouri. It was a long and hard fought battle with Gary receiving by-pass surgery to get rid of hundreds of pounds, but it was also a battle that got rid of thousands of dollars, too. So, while Gary has lost a great deal of weight, it seems, according to Fox 4, that he and Cynthia are threatened with losing a car and behind on other bills. And this is right because why?

Baby Max -- now Dakota Allen Lee Stocklaufer -- was placed in another home after adoption was initially denied the Stocklaufers. He was placed with people who believed they were going to be able to adopt him. I found that strange at the time, since the Stocklaufer's were still fighting for custody. The battle wasn't over, and yet DFS (and related peoples) were acting as though it was and apparently gave the new family false hope as a result. Such unnecessary pain caused by the Missouri system.

The Stocklaufer's case makes one wonder about a great many things. How many people have wrongfully lost children SIMPLY because they didn't have the money to fight, nor the excellent attorney that specializes in such cases? How many indeed?

In the Stocklaufer's case -- a mother gave up her parental rights only on the condition that her relatives -- Gary and Cynthia Stocklaufer -- adopt her son. That mother gave permission for Gary and Cynthia to bring her baby to Missouri, which she had every right to do. So, how could there have been a problem with the baby being brought into a home in Missouri, and into the Stocklaufer's home in particular, as the court tried to use as an excuse after the story got national coverage?

Is the Stocklaufer case an isolated one?

Does the State of Missouri play fair, or do some (within the system) strive to wrongfully stack the deck against foster parents and/or hopeful-adoptive parents? Is there true accountability within the Division of Family Services or do the case workers get to merely play with people's lives based upon their personal opinions and mood for the day? One must wonder. I know I do.

Baby Max (aka Dakota Allen Lee) was returned to his rightful family. How many children have not been?


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.


Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Dakota Voice Downtime

Received a notice from my hosting service that the server where dakotavoice.com resides will be down for 1-2 hours for server maintenance starting at 9 pm Mountain tonight.

See you on the other side...


Pro-Homosexual Propaganda Working

From CitizenLink: Many young Americans say homosexual "marriage" should be legal.




Operation Rescue Supports South Dakota Pro-Life Measure

Some pro-lifers and pro-life groups have experienced some hesitation about supporting South Dakota's pro-life measure, Initiated Measure 11. This is understandable, since IM11 doesn't protect the lives of children conceived in rape or incest--children with the same humanity as any other child.

Yet the voters in South Dakota in 2006 rejected a bill that would have protected these unborn children as well. In lieu of the most consistent bill, pro-lifers in South Dakota have come up with a measure which, according to the latest statistics from the South Dakota Department of Health, would protect more than 98% of the children currently being aborted in South Dakota.

Many pro-lifers like myself have come to the conclusion that while we'd like to save 100% of the children, saving 98% is better than saving 0%.

Operation Rescue has also reached this conclusion, according to LifeNews:

South Dakota's Measure 11 is about saving many babies from certain death. Since that is the mission of Operation Rescue, it deserves our unwavering support," OR president Tory Newman told LifeNews.com.

"Measure 11 is a well planned and reasonable step toward the abolition of abortion. Statistically, Measure 11 will save nearly every child scheduled to die at Planned Parenthood," he added.

Newman said those who, like him, oppose abortions in cases of rape or incest, should appreciate that the drafters of the measure included strong language to ensure that provision isn't abused.

"Additionally, the strong fraud provisions for so-called 'tough choices' of rape and incest would prevent Planned Parenthood from exploiting legal loopholes as they have in many other states," he explained.

While not everyone who is pro-life is on board with the South Dakota legislation because of the exceptions, Newman says the pro-life movement should rally around eliminating virtually all abortions.

"The pro-life community must vote for legislation that would save 99.9% of children that would otherwise be killed. It would be immoral to condemn hundreds of babies to die each year that we have within our ability to save with this measure," he said.

IM11 provides exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother and the life of the mother. While they allow abortions when these circumstances are reported to law enforcement authorities and are medically supported, as appropriate, they are written so that the exceptions cannot be used as loopholes to continue providing abortion on demand as is the current practice.

The rape exception requires that the rape be reported to law enforcement and that DNA evidence from the child be preserved for a match to the perpetrator. The incest exception contains similar requirements. Rape and incest made up 0.4% of the abortions done in 2006.

The health exception specifies that it is only allowed when there is "serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ or system" which could be prevented by an abortion. This must be certified by a doctor.

A KELO poll taken in 2006 before the election found that 75% of South Dakotans said they would support a measure with the exceptions IM11 has.


Financial Crisis Good for Obama

Why is it that whatever is bad news for America is good news for liberals?

Yesterday we found that while out of one side of his mouth Barack Obama has been clamoring for troop withdrawal from Iraq, on the other side he's been secretly trying to convince Iraqi leaders to slow any withdrawal...until he might get a chance to take credit for it.

Now we hear that Obama's been rooting for financial hard times in order to capitalize on that. Apparently the country's financial problems are (yay!) providing him that opportunity.

From NewsBusters on CNN:

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST:...And there is the opportunity for Obama to seize the momentum back on his side. I don't know if he's going to do it or not. He is trying. McCain has an opportunity here as well. But there's no question right now that this -- this really dark economic situation is now going to be -- is going to really -- is going to, I think, blot out a lot of this question about who -- the backing-and-forthing and the advertising, and focus on the issues.

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Right.

GERGEN: And that's what -- that's what Obama has wanted to do. He's now got the opportunity.

Remember what happened right after 911? Bill Clinton was about 8 months out of office when the terrorists struck, and what was the cry from the Clinton camp?

Darn it! Why couldn't this have happened while Bill Clinton was in office. This would have given him an opportunity to look great! This would have been the perfect tragedy to make him look presidential.

Conservatives...we like it when America succeeds. We like it when America's doing well.

We also never seem at a loss to find reasons to praise and rejoice in our country...while liberals never seem at a loss for reasons to bash her and her heritage.

I wonder which of those attitudes is better suited to lead the country?


Pro-Life Campaign Responds to Misleading Pro-Abortion Ad

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Brandi Gruis
605.271.7581

SIOUX FALLS, SD – The ads that the abortion proponents (“Healthy Families”) placed on their website today, in an effort to defeat Initiated Measure 11, is deliberately misleading in an effort to confuse the voting public. At the same time, the abortion proponents exploited and misrepresented a personal tragedy.

Vote Yes for Life has the following response to that misleading ad:

1. The law that appears on the ballot as Initiated Measure 11 is an extremely well written and well crafted law. The law was drafted by South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long at the request of leaders of the State Legislature. Attorney General Long assembled and presided over a panel of eleven legal experts for the purpose of insuring that the law was well crafted. It was drafted over a period of about eight months.

Any suggestion that the law is anything other than well drafted and well thought out is false and deliberately misleading. The voters of South Dakota can trust their Attorney General.

2. The ad claims that South Dakota “already voted on this.”

This is a false representation.

In 2006, the Legislature passed a law that prohibited abortion, but it did not contain exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother. That law was referred to the election in November of 2006 and was voted on.

The 2008 law is totally different and represents what the voting public said they wanted in place of the 2006 law.

In 2006 and again in 2007 and 2008, every poll taken in South Dakota, showed that the vast majority of South Dakota voters (between 58% and 67%) wanted abortion prohibited. But many thought that there should be exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. Although 44% of the voters voted for the 2006 law with no exception, the 2008 Initiated Measure 11 prohibits abortions but incorporates the exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother, and represents what the South Dakota voters wanted as their law.


3. The ad implies that a procedure resulting in the death of a twin that has “Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome” is illegal under the law. That claim is not only false, but a shameful exploitation of the mother shown on the ad who lost her child.

Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome is a very rare complication that threatens the life of the babies in utero. However, today there are modern medical procedures that are used to save the children.

If, however, one of the children dies in utero as a result of those medical interventions, the loss of the baby does not violate the law under Initiated Measure 11. The claim that the mother, under the new law, could not have had a procedure to save the life of one or both of those children is totally false.

There is no reason for a doctor to deliberately kill one of the twins in an effort to save one of them, and physicians do not do so as part of accepted standards of medical practice. Under Section 2 of the law, only if the procedure is designed to deliberately and intentionally kill the baby, is it prohibited – unless it is permitted by one of the exceptions. An unintended death is not a violation of the law, and the law permits the procedure even if there is a risk that one or both babies could die from the procedure.

Section 2 specifically requires that the doctor’s act is “with the intent of causing the termination of the life of an unborn human being.” Medical treatment intended to save the lives of the babies is not prohibited. Further, Section 13, paragraph 1 of the law states:

“Medical treatment ... that results in the unintentional injury or death of the unborn child is not a violation of this Act.”

It is offensive that the abortion proponents would use this personal tragedy to mislead the public, and it is exploitive of a mother who suffered a tragic loss.

4. The ad says that there is no way for a doctor to “give good advice” and that every case should be judged on an “individual case” basis. The implication is that the law prevents both.

That implication is deliberately misleading. Section 4 of the law specifically preserves the right of a doctor to make “a judgment that an abortion is necessary because there is a serious risk “of injury to a major bodily function of the mother. A doctor is not liable under the law if he performs an abortion to preserve the health of the mother, unless the “physician knowingly disregards accepted standard of medical practice.”

This means that only if the doctor knows good medicine does not require the abortion, is he prohibited from performing the abortion.

5. The ad makes the false claims that the voters can’t know what they are voting on.

The abortion proponents make these false claims because they cannot win a debate about this law if they made candid admissions about its content.

The law simply says that it is illegal to deliberately and intentionally kill an unborn child except in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is at risk or there is a serious risk to the health of the mother.

Having actors read Section 15 (chapters 187 and 188 etc.”) is intended to create the false impression that the law is difficult to understand. Section 15 is a technical section meant for the courts to let them know that one other law is not repealed.


Playing Dumb about Initiated Measure 11

Does nature favor the stupid? Not according to Charles Darwin. Not according to any other source I know of either...unless you're a liberal.

You know how liberals like to play the "race card," right? Did you know they sometimes play the "dumb card"? It works a little different, but it's intended to do the same thing: play upon fears and obscure the real issue.

The liberals are playing dumb again, just as they did with the marriage protection amendment in 2006 when they claimed, "Duh, I don't know what 'quasi' means. Oh, and while I'm at it, duh, I don't know how to find a dictionary and look it up.

Like Barack Obama who claims something as simple and obvious as human life is "above his pay grade," pro-abortion liberals from the South Dakota Campaign for UnHealthy Families have a new ad up their sleeve to try and fool the voters of South Dakota into believing the exceptions in Initiated Measure 11 are so complicated that no average human being can figure them out.

Go read them for yourself here; see if they're as complicated as the pro-abortionists claim.

In this ad, the pro-abortion folks pull an extremely rare medical condition out of the hat as if it were realistically something that many pregnant women would face--and this condition does not always necessitate the death of one twin as they imply.

Notice, too, how they talk out of both sides of their mouth in this ad. One moment, they're complaining that "trying to cover every medical circumstance" results in a complicated measure, and the next moment they're complaining that one rare instance might have been left out. Logical consistency is optional; whatever fear-mongering tool will convince the audience is acceptable.

The UnHealthy Families gang wants you to believe IM 11 is a real mind-bender. It's only a mind-bender if you want to try to find a way around these exceptions without really having a situation covered by these exceptions. Yes, finding a way to get an abortion because "I don't want it" under these exceptions will be pretty confusing and hard to figure out.

The exceptions require proof that grounds exist for an abortion under those exceptions, plain and simple. They were designed not to be abused. Of course, the pro-abortionists would rather have an "exception" that didn't require any proof of a rape or a health threat...so they could push any abortion they wanted through a loophole the size of Mount Rushmore. But that isn't really what it's about, is it?

In 2006, pro-abortionists lied to the voters of South Dakota and said Referred Law 6 was "too extreme," and "if only it had exceptions" then reasonable people could support it.

Now that we have Initiated Measure 11 with those exceptions they whined for in 2006...oh, now they aren't broad enough. They're too restrictive. They're too complicated. They're too hard to figure out.

In reality, they prevent the only thing pro-abortionists will settle for: full access to abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever, including the one chosen by 84.6% of South Dakota women seeking an abortion: "The mother did not desire to have the child."

Also, the 50,000+ South Dakotans who signed the petition to put this measure on the November ballot obviously didn't have any trouble figuring it out, either.

Folks, they're not as dumb as they let on. And neither are you. This "I'm too dumb" act is just a thin ruse to make a very clear issue seem far more complicated than it is...in order to scare you into voting against the most reasonable, common-sense abortion measure ever to come out.

No, the pro-abortionists aren't dumb at all. They're smart enough to realize that, as the polls indicated in 2006, more than 70% of South Dakotans will vote for a measure with these exceptions. And they're smart enough to realize they must come up with a fresh excuse that you might buy, in order to keep abortion on demand available as retroactive birth control.

Voters of South Dakota, you'll get your chance in November to show the pro-abortion extremists that you are smarter than them ...and their tricks.


THE SERMON ON THE MILE HIGH MOUNT



From our friends at The People’s Cube:

The Book of Invesco
By Mikhail T. Kalashnikov

1Then it came to pass in the Land of Entitlement that the Word became Change and the Change became Hope and the Hope became Change You Can Believe In. 2And The Obamessisah went about all fifty-seven states, teaching at their Caucuses and Primaries, healing malaise among the poor in spirit, and preaching the gospel of Progress. 3Then His fame went throughout all the land; and they came to Him all people who were afflicted with Bush Derangement; and those who were hopenitized; moonbats and troofers; and He wooed them. 4Great multitudes followed Him - from Chicago to Jersey, and beyond the Hills of Beverly.
(More...)



In the top photo the Obamessiah is shown with the apostles Sts. Chris and Keith;
in the lower photo the Obamessiah speaks to the gathered multitude, before distributing loaves of largesse and entitlement fish.

(Used with permission.)


Cleaning Up the Liberal Lending Mess

GUEST COLUMN

BY ANTON KAISER

In the year 2000, during the Clinton administration, a report was prepared on the affects of subprime loans in Boston. Subsequently, similar reports were done for Atlanta and Chicago but they all said the same thing:

• “Loan originations by subprime lenders grew by 435 percent between 1994 and 1998, compared to the growth of all loan originations by 119 percent.”

• “The share of all originations accounted for by subprime lenders more than doubled between 1994 and 1998, starting at less than 2 percent and climbing to 4 percent.”

• “The growth in subprime lending was much more significant for properties in low-income and minority neighborhoods than for properties in other kinds of neighborhoods. Between 1994 and 1998, subprime lending grew by 1,075 percent in very low-income neighborhoods (where the median household income is less than 50 percent of the metro area median) and by 827 percent in low-income areas (where median income is between 50 percent and 80 percent of the metro area median). In neighborhoods where more than half the residents are minority group members, subprime lending increased by over 1,000 percent.”

• “The share of foreclosures by subprime lenders grew rapidly in Boston neighborhoods of all income levels and have come to account for between 10 and 12 percent of all foreclosures.”

• “Foreclosures by subprime lenders were also most common in majority minority neighborhoods. In 1999, the share of foreclosures in these areas attributable to subprime lenders was 14 percent, compared to about 10 percent in other areas.”

Remember, this report was in 2000. So early on we knew that subprime loans were a serious problem, but how did they happen?

First Johnson enacted the “Fair Housing Act of 1968” designed to combat racial discrimination. Fair enough. But second came Carter’s “The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977” giving “banking institutions a strong incentive to make loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers or areas.” And third came Carter’s “1980 Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act” which “eliminated all usury controls on first-lien mortgage rates, permitting lenders to charge higher rates of interest to borrowers who posed an elevated credit risk.” Nevertheless, these new financial tools remained dormant until 1994 (notice that all the data above begins in 1994, and for good reason).

These Carter tools - incentives and deregulation - were resurrected when the Democrats found themselves with a newly elected president in 1993. So, “After 12 years of inaction or worse under the Reagan and Bush administrations . . [the Democrats] sought to have HUD and federal agencies that regulate lenders take a more active and interventionist stance” concerning fair housing.

Thus, in 1994, Clinton established the President’s Fair Housing Council and by executive order directed “the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Attorney General and, where appropriate, the heads of the Federal banking agencies to exercise national leadership to end discrimination in mortgage lending, the secondary mortgage market, and property insurance practices.” And so emerged the preeminence of subprime loans, primarily to minorities.

The results between 1994 and 1999 from this new council can be seen in the 2000 report above, and this is the reason so many of the housing foreclosures began shortly after 1994 and continue to this day, sharply increasing after periods of low interest rates. In fact, low interest rates, seemingly a good deal, actually exacerbated the problem, expanding the available capital, increasing the number of subprime loans, inflating home prices, and winding the spring on this financial trap ever tighter. In 1997, Al Gore actually issued a press release bragging that “Between 1993 and 1996, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased over one million mortgages made to low- and moderate-income homebuyers.” And so it all began.

Thus, a well intentioned social program in 1968, slowly grew from its roots in the halcyon days of Johnson’s Great Society to wrap its socialist arms around Carter’s concerns for the poor and Clinton’s ideas of minority equality. Add creative financing and accounting and, despite federal oversight, by 2008 the system had mushroomed and was out of control, threatening the nation’s entire financial system.

There is no better example than the current housing crisis for limiting government social programs.

As with the increase in terrorism, the housing crisis grew out of the Clinton administration (and the data shows it), and now we have another liberal mess to clean up.

Anton Kaiser was born in Aberdeen, South Dakota, and retired in Rapid City after serving twenty-seven years as a U.S. Army infantry officer. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, West Point, and holds Masters Degrees in Business and in Public Administration from Webster College, St. Louis, MO. He is also a veteran of Vietnam, Berlin, Operation Just Cause (Panama) and an honor graduate of the Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS.


 
Clicky Web Analytics