Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Banned From YouTube

This is the video that was quickly banned from YouTube because of a "copyright infringement." This updated version uses music and video claiming safe harbor under the Fair Use Doctine. To those still confused about what happened and who is to blame for the mortgage crisis and the collapse of the government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, these ten minutes of video are for you.



And here we see Obama covering his Fannie:


Barack Obama: Early Release for Sex Offenders

In the Illinois Senate, Barack Obama voted for early release for sex offenders.

Don't the rights of the innocent to be safe take priority over breaks for convicted sex offenders?


Obama's First Priority: Reinstitute Partial Birth Abortion

Barack Obama is on record saying his first priority as president would be to implement the Freedom of Choice Act, which would result in the re-legalization of partial birth abortion, eliminate parental notification of minor girl abortions, and taxpayer-funded abortion

This, before economic issues or even ensuring strong national defense.



Socialist Obama Anthen

From our friends at the People's Cube, here's your laugh of the day...which would be funnier if there wasn't so much frightening truth to it.

Obama is indeed a socialist of one of the highest orders we've ever seen in elected office in America...and he looks with loathing on authentic Christianity and things like gun ownership that average Americans cherish.

But laugh for what it's worth today...then go out and do what you can to ensure this video is obsolete a month from now.


Human Passions Unbridled by Morality

American Minute from William J. Federer

On OCTOBER 11, 1798, President John Adams wrote to the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Division of the Militia of Massachusetts: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net."

Adams continued: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

British Statesman Edmund Burke told the National Assembly, 1791: "What is liberty without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils...madness without restraint. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites."

Edmund Burke continued: "Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without."

U.S. Speaker of the House Robert Winthrop stated on May 28, 1849: "Men, in a word, must be controlled either by a power within them, or a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."

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.


Why Did Barack Obama Support Infanticide?

Why did Senator Barack Obama oppose a measure to preserve the life of infants born alive after failed attempts to abort them?

Why did he support infanticide?


Video: Doctors Address Medical Concerns Over Pro-Life Measure

At a press conference at the Rapid City office of VoteYesForLIfe.com on Thursday, Dr. Daniel Franz, Dr. Mike Statz, Dr. Donald Oliver, and Dr. Pamela Schmagel addressed medical concerns over Initiated Measure 11, South Dakota's pro-life bill.

Opponents of the measure which would restrict abortion except in the case of rape, incest, the health of the mother and life of the mother have forwarded a rare fetal malady called Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS) as a reason why IM 11 should not be passed.

The doctors today stated that due to the highly technical nature of the treatment, treatment for TTTS is not even done in South Dakota. However, even if it were, it would be covered and allowed by IM 11.

Doctors also pointed out that the procedure which can result in the death of one of two twins is not always required in the already-rare instances of TTTS. Other treatments exist which can save both twins.

Doctors explained that IM 11 is designed to make a distinction between medical care designed to save human life, versus abortions which are intended to deliberately end human life.


NOTE: Due to an equipment malfunction, I missed about 3 minutes of the press conference toward the end; the missing section is between Part 1 and Part 2 of these videos. There were also some difficulties with sound, so the volume is low but audible.


Part 1




Part 2



Americans Don't Believe Pro-Big-Government Spin on Financial Crisis

Just when it seems you're about to lose all hope, afraid that too many Americans have bought into the Marxist propaganda spewed non-stop by the "mainstream" media, a light shines forth out of the darkness to give you hope.

So it was today as I read at Fox News that a majority of Americans see government not as the savior in the current financial crisis, but as the villain.

A 53 percent majority thinks government involvement is not part of the solution at all, but part of the problem. This view is more intense among Republicans (69 percent) and independents (59 percent)--though a large minority of Democrats (40 percent) also views government involvement in a negative light.

READ MORE...


The Uninsured and Government Health Care Scam

This is an enlightening video about some of the people who "can't" afford health insurance.

This is also an important lesson in why socialism is not only the lamest idea ever to strike humanity, it's bad for everyone it touches: bad for the drive and dignity it enables to be slackers, and bad for the people from whom it robs productivity to give to the slackers.

Better to go back to the private system of charity we had in this country until about 50 years ago. Private individuals and charities are in a much better position to discern genuine need, help those in genuine need to get out of need, and encourage those without genuine needs to take care of themselves.

Don't let Obama and his Merry Band of Liberals fool you; run as far as you can from "government solutions" to pretty much anything.


Stoplight: Do You Know Who You Are?

In an age of identity theft and voter-registration fraud, Stuart Shepard wonders in his Stoplight video commentary why anyone would argue against a little ID check.

Here, here! The only folks I can think of who would oppose solid ID check and voter registration procedures would be, well, those who want to perpetrate a little fraud (or a LOT of fraud if you're ACORN).

Having dead folks, animals and stuck keyboards voting is hardly in the interest of democracy.


It's time to go back to basics

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

When successful companies fail, when winning teams start to lose, what we're most likely to hear is an announcement from the CEO or the coach about returning to basics.

It's not unusual for success to lead to a loss of focus that indeed there are basics from which it all started. In the language of proverbs, pride precedes the fall.

Undoubtedly, at a time like this, when markets are in chaos and everyone is worried, moralizing is likely to provoke rolling of eyes. But, I think this is exactly the time to think about basics and principles.

The operative question is: If there were a national consensus about the need to return to basics, would there be a consensus about what those basics are?

If we agree that the United States is a great nation, what made it, what makes it, great? Shouldn't this be the question we're asking? Shouldn't we be concerned that no one seems to be asking it? Either there are some fundamentals or it's all a massive stroke of blind luck.

One hundred years ago, government took 10 cents of every dollar. Today, it takes 35 cents of every dollar.

Now we no longer have just government programs. As those government programs fail, instead of getting to the root and getting rid of them, we're creating new government programs on top of them.

Instead of getting back to basics, we're getting farther and farther detached from reality.

I can't help but think of the joke about neurotics building castles in the sky and psychotics moving into them.

It's no joke that we've moved into castles we have built in the sky. Today, even though some of these castles are tumbling to solid ground, it does not seem to be waking up most.

For good reasons, the financial mess we're in is bringing back memories of the 1930s.

Let's recall that we responded to events back then with fundamental changes in how we viewed government. It became less what the founders of the nation intended it to be -- protector of individual life, liberty, and property -- and it became a tool for social policy.

One product was Social Security. This is one of the castles we have built in the sky.

Sure it may take years to build these castles, and then more to realize you're moving into them. But sooner or later, reality sets in.

As we try to stay afloat with the trillions of dollars of debt we now realize we've taken on as result of government housing programs, who is thinking about the $10 trillion unfunded liabilities of Social Security?

Or how about Medicare? Social Security came from the "New Deal." Medicare was a product of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." The unfunded bills staring at us for Medicare piles about another $50-to-$60 trillion on top of the $10 trillion Social Security debt.

How about our fundamental moral collapse over these years? Today, with almost 40 percent of our babies born to unwed mothers, it won't be long before few Americans will even know what growing up in a traditional family means.

Returning to basics in America means remembering what private property, personal responsibility, and traditional values mean.

After the tragedy on Sept. 11, 2001, many got upset with a few evangelical preachers who suggested that the tragedy presented good reason for Americans to check themselves and the moral condition of our society.

America was built on basics. It's time to get back to them if our children and grandchildren are to enjoy what their parents and grandparents had.

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, October 10, 2008

South Dakota Wingnut Protests at U.S. Capitol

Gid from SD Wingnuts is in Washington D.C. for the Americans for Prosperity Defending the American Dream Summit.

(I had planned to go, and Gid & were going to team up to do some great coverage, but key elements fell through for me at the last minute).

He's posted some video over at the Wingnuts from Fox News (and featured here below) of a protest he attended at the U.S. Capitol today to stop the government bailout of the financial meltdown.

Gid is there to the right of the podium, so watch for him.

Also, keep an eye on the SD Wingnuts website tomorrow for continued coverage as the summit goes into the second day tomorrow.


Obama's Latest Ayers Dodge: I Thought He'd Been Rehabilitated

We have an update in the ever-shifting sands of Barack Obama's position and story on his terrorist associate Bill Ayers.

First Obama said Ayers was "just some guy in the neighborhood." Then, after that didn't fly, it was something like "Yeah, but we didn't really work together much." Then it was something like, "Yeah, but I didn't know he was a domestic terrorist who bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and other buildings, and that he despises America."

That one didn't fly very far either, so now it's "I assumed that he had been rehabilitated."

Well, which is it? You didn't know him? You did, but not well? You did know him well, but didn't know about his terrorist anti-American past? You did know him and know about his anti-American terrorist past, but "assumed that he had been rehabilitated?"

Here's what The Politico has to say about Obama's latest dodge:

"The gentleman in question, Bill Ayers, is a college professor, teaches education at the University of Illinois," he said. "That's how i met him -- working on a school reform project that was funded by an ambassador and very close friend of Ronald Reagan's" along with "a bunch of conservative businessmen and civic leaders."

"Ultimately, I ended up learning about the fact that he had engaged in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was eight years old at the time and I assumed that he had been rehabilitated," Obama said.

That may not have been an unreasonable assumption for Obama in the 1990s. Though Ayers never repented his part in the Weather Underground bombings, he had not yet become notorious for advertising them. That notoriety returned in 2001, when he published his memoir, "Fugitive Days," and reminisced about the bombings in a New York Times interview that happened to appear September 11 of that year.

Unless Obama is far more obtuse than he appears to be, that just doesn't fly.

Though Ayers put a little spit and polish on his anti-Americanism, it has changed little since the 1970s. He still bashes America and capitalism on his blog, along with the American flag, patriotism and Christianity.

Can you imagine someone of the extreme views and deep-seated and burning hatred of America that Ayers has keeping his mouth shut around Obama on those views? Can you imagine that in all the time Obama spent with him and around him...going to Ayers' home for the meet-and-greet that launched Obama's career...serving on the board together of the Annenberg Challenge that Ayers helped start...serving together on the board of the Woods Foundation...that in all that time around one another, Obama never got a glimpse of the terrorist America-hating Bill Ayers?

If you believe that, I have some ocean-front property in Arizona you're going to love.


The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

A friend sent me this today. You might have seen this before, but it remains a very powerful illustration not only of the difference between Democrats and Republicans, but the difference between liberalism and conservatism.

The scenario played out in this story is a great illustration of the affirmative-action-type politics and wealth-redistribution politics so lovingly embraced by liberals:


A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'


Barack Obama and ACORN

John McCain is now hitting Barack Obama on his connections to the corrupt ACORN organization.



Connecticut Court the Latest to Hijack Marriage

According to MSNBC and other outlets, the Supreme Court of Connecticut has taken it on itself to redefine "marriage" to include the union of two homosexuals.

Justices overturned a lower court ruling and found in favor of the plaintiffs, who said the state's marriage law discriminates against them because it applies only to heterosexual couples, therefore denying gay couples the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

Actually, what these activist judges are doing is awarding a special right to do what has never and should never be allowed: to call something "marriage" when by nature it can never be "marriage."

Homosexuals already have the same right as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex. However, they don't want the same right that everyone else has; they want to engage in an unnatural, immoral, unhealthy and illegitimate sexual behavior and have society slap a label of legitimacy on it by calling it "marriage."

If we are going to allow homosexuals to counterfeit marriage, we might as well allow people to counterfeit U.S. currency; the latter would actually do less damage to the moral fiber and health of our society than would the former.

Governor M. Jodi Rell is a gutless wonder at best for stating she will not fight the ruling. She could actually ignore it. She is only obligated to obey the law and the Constitution, and since neither allow this kind of assault on marriage and family, she is under no obligation to obey the lawless, made-up dictates of a bunch of self-appointed social engineers.

As for these black-robed oligarchs, it really is overdue for Americans to start impeaching judges who overstep their bounds and play legislator. The people have a right to call for the impeachment of officials who abuse their power--and this is an abuse of power of the highest order.

There is nothing in the Connecticut constitution to justify allowing two homosexuals to call their union "marriage" any more than there is something to justify a man marrying three women or a woman marrying an elm tree.

Marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman. Marriage is an institution designed by God to bring a man and a woman together in committed physical and emotional union for the purpose of creating a family. Homosexual couples by their very nature cannot create a family; at best, they could only adopt a child into their immoral and unhealthy environment.

Marriage also provides a vital benefit for the state, and the state has a compelling interest in guarding marriage from being hijacked by homosexual activists and their "useful idiots" on the court.

Marriage produces the next generation to carry on a society, along with the economy and everything else that sustains that society. Marriage provides a safe, stable, healthy and loving environment in which that next generation can be nurtured and raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults.

Homosexuals have much higher rates of promiscuity, AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, herpes, HPV, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence. Even among homosexual relationships where monogamy is claimed, the reality bears no resemblance whatsoever to what any reasonable person would recognize as monogamy.

Not only can children not naturally result from homosexual unions (even if you slap the label "marriage" on it), placing children into an environment like this, even by adoption, is an act of profound dereliction for the safety and welfare of the child.

What's more, placing a child into a homosexual home deliberately deprives the child of either a mother or father. I think Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum said it best when he said today: “We ask, which parent doesn’t matter: a mom or a dad?”

Only those more concerned about their own fulfillment than the welfare of a child would advocate such insanity, and only those afraid of being called "intolerant" or "homophobic" would tolerate it.

Marriage is NOT, as homosexual activists and activist judges seem to think, a label to slap on a sexual relationship to give it an air of legitimacy.

Though this imposition of judicial will on the people of Connecticut is 100% wrong, given our current environment of homosexual and judicial activism, the people of Connecticut really should have known better and moved to defend themselves earlier.

We have examples from Massachusetts and California already that, in the absence of spelling out the obvious in the constitution, unelected black-robed oligarchs have shown their eagerness to re-engineer society and will squash law and mere common sense as easily and thoughtlessly as you or I might squash an ant on the sidewalk.

Currently 27 states have amendments in their constitutions which spell out what used to be so universally understood that it didn't even need to be said: that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The remaining 23 states--especially those not yet besieged as California, Massachusetts and Connecticut are--should take heed and immediately begin efforts to put marriage into their constitutions if they haven't already begun.

These judges should be impeached immediately and removed from power, and replaced with judges who will respect the constitution, law, morality and the people they ostensibly serve.

And if Governor Rell participates in this hijacking of marriage and family, she should be removed as well.

The American people and the people of their respective states are going to have to rise up and take back their states, their country and their society if they don't want to see them literally go down the toilet.

For too long we have slumbered under the illusion that morality in public life didn't matter, and for too long we have naively trusted our officials to do the right thing.

We must realize that time has passed. We must realize it is time for the people to take back their government and their society. If we do not, we will have a government and a society which we no longer recognize...and will have only ourselves to blame.


Newsbusted Conservative Comedy 10/10/2008

Topics in today's show:

--Democrats tell voters McCain may die in office

--A radio reporter gets fired for wearing Obama t-shirt to cover a rally

--Kim Jong Il finally makes public appearance, and

--Kathy Griffin sues website named after her

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.



Real Americans Terrify the Media

Isn't it amazing that the "mainstream" media still insists on calling themselves "mainstream" and "objective" and "fair?"

I don't think most people believe that, but there may be enough naive people who still do to sway an election.

The average American simply finds it hard to accept that media "professionals" would so brazenly distort their coverage. Most people aren't this boldly deceptive, so they find it hard to believe someone else would be--especially a "professional."

But the Media Campaign for Obama rolls on.

This is an excerpt from an email from someone covering a McCain-Palin appearance yesterday, sent to WTMJ 620 NewsRadio:

At the media breakfast at the Pfister Hotel about an hour ago, you would simply not believe the vicious, nasty conversation I just overheard between several "elite" media types from the McClatchey news service, AP, and a couple of other sources I didn't quite catch.

Over the course of just a few minutes, I heard that "Sean Hannity gives Dick Cheney the best head of his life," that he and Lou Dobbs are "mean-spirited sycophants," and that McCain himself is "angry" and "crusty." One even recalled a recent campaign event at which Sarah Palin autographed a supporter's Bible, prompting this "objective" journalist to remark "these people terrify me."

The "mainstream" media say average Americans are "out of touch."

They have that one exactly backwards. Would that they'd all move to Cuba where they could be happy in the socialist paradise and leave everyday Americans alone.


Coming to America

American Minute from William J. Federer

Marco Polo traveled in 1271 to meet Kublai Khan, grandson of Ghengis Khan, who was Emperor of China, Korea, North India, Persia, Russia and Hungary.

Emperor Kublai Khan had requested Christian teachers, but only two preaching friars were sent by Pope Gregory X, and they turned back in fear when crossing an area being attacked by Turkish Muslims.

Marco Polo was employed by Kublai Khan as an envoy for 24 years. Upon his return to Italy, Polo was captured at Genoa, where he dictated his travels.

In 1492, Genoa born Christopher Columbus wrote to the King and Queen of Spain: "Concerning the lands of India, and a Prince called Gran Khan...how many times he sent to Rome to seek doctors in our Holy Faith to instruct him and that never had the Holy Father provided them...Your Highnesses...devoted to the Holy Christian Faith...resolved to send me...to the said regions of India, to see the said princes...and the manner in which may be undertaken their conversion to our Holy Faith."

On OCTOBER 10, 1492, Columbus' Journal records: "Here the people could stand it no longer and complained of the long voyage...but the Admiral...added that it was useless to complain. He had come to the Indies, and so had to continue until he found them, with the help of Our Lord."

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.


Blind Ambition and Bad Judgment

Barack Obama has plenty of ambition, but is short on leadership.

The latest McCain ad hits Obama on his judgment, citing his association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and the complicity of the Democrats in the subprime crisis.



Rapid City Doctors Address Medical Concerns Over Pro-Life Measure

VoteYesForLife.com held a press conference at their office in Rapid City at noon yesterday to discuss the Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS) which has been in the news lately.

Opponents of Initiated Measure 11 claim this fetal problem could not be treated under IM 11 without placing the doctor in legal jeopardy.

Several doctors spoke today about that issue. Appearing at VoteYesForLife.com were Dr. Daniel Franz, Dr. Mike Statz, Dr. Donald Oliver, and Dr. Pamela Schmagel.

Dr. Schmagel, an OBGYN, said some people claim that IM 11 would not allow doctors to carry out medically-indicated plans and procedures as may be necessary.

"This, of course, is not true," said Schmagel.

"There are multiple ways to treat Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome," Schmagel continued. "And there are no perfect treatments. Please remember that these are highly technical treatments, and most are not available in South Dakota."

The intent of this procedure, she pointed out, is to save life, not to end it--a critical difference between this procedure and abortion.

"Television ads like the one previously mentioned," said Schmagel, "Are misrepresenting the true intent of this measure. Initiated Measure 11 does not preclude the use of standard medical procedures with the goal of life and health."

One lady (I'm not sure if she was a reporter, but suspect she may have been someone from the pro-abortion South Dakota Campaign for UnHealthy Families) said the South Dakota Medical Association recently issued a statement opposing this measure, and asked for a response from the group of doctors.

Dr. Don Oliver said he had not read such a statement from the South Dakota Medical Association, but if what was said was true, he was disappointed in it.

A question was asked where it says in the bill that this kind of procedure is acceptable, and Dr. Oliver said the bill states accepted medical practice is allowed to extend life for mother and child.

Dr. Schmegel said she was a member of the medical association, but she was not made privy to what they supposedly said earlier today.

Dr. Statz pointed out again that the intent to save life is covered and allowed under this bill. He also said there were several methods of treating the TTTS condition that are "accepted medical practice."

However, he said there is no one the state of South Dakota who performs this procedure, so this procedure would not even be applicable to any doctor in South Dakota. He said he believed that Ohio is the nearest place where this procedure could be obtained, but even if it were performed in South Dakota, it would be permissible under IM 11.

He also pointed out that there are no South Dakota doctors who perform abortions; they are all flown in from Minnesota to Sioux Falls.

He also said the only doctors pushing this are pro-abortion doctors. He said all standard medical care can be given by an obstetrician under this bill.

The bill, he said, was written by the Attorney General and 11 other experts with specific intent to meet medical and legal requirements.

Dr. Schmagel said she will not change her practices in any way when this bill passes. She said she routinely cares for high-risk pregnancies and other complications, and that everything she currently does will continue to be permissible under IM 11.

Dr. Oliver said many in the public and media are missing the point of this debate over IM 11.

He recalled that the South Dakota Campaign for UnHealthy Families in 2006 campaigned on "no exceptions," implying that if there were exceptions, they would support the bill. Now that a bill is here with exceptions, they again refuse to support the bill. Dr. Oliver said people should be asking, "Why?"

He said these people who are opposing IM 11 are radically pro-abortion and believe in abortion on demand at any time for any reason, and they hide behind objections like this TTTS condition because they know most South Dakotans don't agree with their extreme position. He said they are afraid to be honest.

Dr. Oliver said the people of South Dakota asked for these exceptions, so we are back with a bill that provides what the people indicated they desired.

Dr. Statz said polls done in 2006 and in this year have indicated overwhelming support for a bill that had exceptions.

Dr. Statz said medical association polling done in 2006 were biased and contained errors, and that those errors were eventually acknowledged and apologized for by the association.

When asked, Dr. Schmegel said she wasn't sure how many twin pregnancies would be severe enough to require the procedure discussed, but about 1 out of 1000 twins are affected by TTTS itself in varying degrees.


Chris Matthews Builds the Thrill for Obama

Isn't it a thrilling thing when a newsman just can't contain his bias anymore?

The professionalism...the integrity...they just go flying out the window along with that facade of self-control. Matthews is unfettered! He's liberated!

How liberating it must be for Chris Matthews to be so...unencumbered by objectivity. No longer feeling bound by the pretense most newsmen at least pay lip service to.

I guess Chris Matthews is no longer operating undercover. He's out, baby!

As this video point out though, that shiver, that tingle, that thrill can bring other problems...

Warning: when you click Play on this video, be prepared to laugh your socks off.



From the folks at MRC and Human Events.


Right to Life Pioneer Issues Statement Supporting South Dakota Pro-Life Measure

Dr. J.C. Willke sent the letter below out in response to the opposition from South Dakota Right to Life which has become known to the general public in recent days.

Dr. Wilke is one of the pioneers of the pro-life movement



To: All South Dakota Pro-Lifers

From: J. C. Willke, M.D.
7634 Pineglen Drive, Cincinnati, OH
President National Right to Life, 1980 – 1991
President, Life Issues Institute
President, International Right to Life Federation

Re: SD Measure 11- Abortion Ban

South Dakota Pro-lifers did try to protect all unborn babies, the exception being for the life of the mother. It was voted down. Since that time, you are protecting none. Now solid, pro-life leaders among you have made a second attempt. They hope to save the lives of 95 - 99% of those babies now. The exceptions are put in this initiative, not because your leaders don’t want to save those babies, but because it is obvious that the electorate will not accept such a total ban at this time. Therefore, they are asking you, and I add my earnest plea, to save as many as you can now with the passage of this initiative. We all want to save that extra fraction but you cannot do it now, so you should do what you can do.

Please understand that those who tell you to vote against the initiative are well- intentioned. They say this one is not perfect and they are correct. They say this is not the time, but I believe they are wrong. If you wait for the perfect, you will see the continuing slaughter of your babies go on indefinitely. There will never be the ideal time. Now is the time for the citizens of South Dakota to insist on saving the lives of the overwhelming majority of your developing babies, while at the same time giving a magnificent example to the rest of the nation and to the rest of the world.

As one of the “fathers” of the pro-life movement, I strongly recommend a “yes” vote on this initiative.

Sincerely for Life,
J. C. Willke, M.D.


Thursday, October 09, 2008

Sarah Palin Draws Crowd of 10,000 or More

The Wilmington News Journal of Ohio says Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin drew a crowd of 10,000 to 11,000.

Wow! I didn't know you could get that many people with good taste all in one place!

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin drew an estimated crowd of 10,000 to 11,000 Thursday at Roberts Convention Centre, delivering a 30-minute speech in which she said Sen. John McCain is a maverick with “pragmatic ideals” and also evoked the figure of Ronald Reagan for her southern Ohio audience.

The packed audience was enthusiastic and warm — many people were using campaign signs to fan themselves.

She's going to make a great vice president...and then a great president!


Stand with John McCain

Do you stand with John McCain? These folks do



Chicago Way Isn't the American Way

Barack Obama has been learning from the wrong people, and palling around with the wrong people.



On SD Right to Life Opposition to Initiated Measure 11

South Dakota Right to Life's opposition to Initiated Measure 11 is creating a lot of buzz right now.

Their recent newsletter had an ad or statement on the back page in opposition to IM 11.

While pro-abortionists are, predictably, doing their best to spin this as "implosion in the pro-life community" and such drivel, it really just shows how out of touch they are.

The pro-life community knew RTL was officially opposed to a measure with exceptions, even before IM 11 was completed and made ready for the petition drive. There's nothing at all new here, and no disagreement that hasn't been known about for a year or more.

It is most assuredly disappointing that some of our pro-life friends in RTL aren't with the rest of the pro-life community on this. In addition to facing a well-funded and fanatically desperate opposition made up of Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and other ultra-liberal radicals, we would simply like to be united in this important effort.

I agree totally with Pastor Hickey at Voices Carry: many rank-and-file people who belong to RTL do support this measure.

When I was helping gather petition signatures to get Initiated Measure 11 on the ballot, I talked to a number of county chapter RTL leaders in northern and central South Dakota about circulating petitions in their area. I knew when I made the phone call that officially RTL was against us, but I thought it worth a try anyway. I was pleasantly surprised to be met with statements like, "Sure! I'd love to! How many petitions can you send me?"

While it may be obvious to some, it remains important to note that the opposition to some in South Dakota RTL have to IM 11 is for the exact opposite reason the pro-abortion South Dakota Campaign for UnHealthy Families opposes IM 11: while SDRTL believes IM 11 doesn't save enough unborn children, UnHealthy Families believes IM doesn't allow enough unborn children to be killed. Both opposed, but big difference in why.

I understand the misgivings some in RTL have with IM 11. I, too, would prefer a law that recognized the dignity and humanity of all unborn children, regardless of the circumstances of their conception.

However, we gave that our best shot in 2006...and unfortunately too many voters were misled by the pro-abortionists. But since we tried our best to get the right bill passed, and failed, I have absolutely zero qualms about supporting IM 11 100%.

And since most average pro-lifers across South Dakota--plus practically every national pro-life organization including Operation Rescue--also support IM 11, I have no doubts that it's the right thing to do.

According to the latest statistics available from the South Dakota Department of Health, only 1.9% of the abortions done in South Dakota fall within the exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother and life of the mother.

The largest segment of abortions done in South Dakota--84.6%--are done because "the mother did not desire to have the child."

That's abortion on demand. That's abortion as retroactive birth control. And that is what South Dakotans have said in polls like the one KELO did in 2006 that they do not endorse; that KELO poll found 75% support for a bill with exceptions. This one has those exceptions; they are not excuses, but carefully worded exceptions.

If you could only save 98.1% of the people in a burning building, would you stand on the sidewalk with your arms crossed because you couldn't save 100%?

Neither would I. So I'm not.


Unelected Judges Fight Arkansas Adoption Measure

Arkansas voters will get to decide on a measure to protect children and help ensure a stable, healthy environment for adopted children.

The measure would restrict unmarried couples, homosexual or heterosexual, from adopting children.

While this measure would also rightly prevent unmarried heterosexuals from adopting (if they cannot commit to one another, why should they be entrusted to committing to raising a child?), homosexual activists are the group speaking out against the measure the loudest.

A pro-homosexual group called Arkansas Families First, masquerading as a pro-family group, opposes the measure. (This bait-and-switch is becoming a favorite Leftist tactic isn't it? Like the pro-abortion "South Dakota Campaign for Health Families")

Homosexuals have much higher rates of AIDS, STDs, hepatitis, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence. Homosexual relationships also have much higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual ones, and even those relationships which claim to be monogamous usually involve a twisted definition of "monogamy" that involves outside sexual partners.

This is not the place for any child, and certainly not one being adopted, since adopted children often come from backgrounds that have already been troubled. They need stability and healthy environments--not one that deliberately robs the child of either a mother or father, and also subjects them to considerable health risks.


McDonalds Leaves Pro-Homosexual Organization

Perhaps McDonald's felt the pain of pro-family conservatives speaking their mind with their wallets because OneNewsNow reports McDonald's vice president Richard Ellis resigned from the board of directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

About three months ago it was reported that McDonald's had donated $20,000 to the pro-homosexual NGLCC. McDonald's has also been supporting homosexual "pride" parades.

The American Family Association (AFA) and other pro-family conservatives decided at that time to boycott the seemingly family-friendly restaurant for it's overt hostility toward marriage and family.

But the latest news indicates McDonald's will not be filling the seat on the NGLCC board vacated by Ellis.

In a press release on Thursday morning, AFA reports that in an email from McDonald's to its franchise owners the company stated its policy is "to not be involved in political and social issues."

Randy Sharp is director of special projects with AFA. He says McDonald's has pledged to remain neutral in the culture war surrounding homosexual marriage.

How ironic that, in the first place, McDonalds and other organizations pander to an immoral and unhealthy constituency that only makes up 2.9% of the population, risking alienating the 82% of Americans who still identify with Christianity; the Bible makes it clear in both Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is immoral under all circumstances.

Perhaps the reason McDonald's and many other businesses are willing to pander to immoral groups is because, unlike most Christians, those groups are not afraid to speak their minds--and speak loudly. Perhaps if more conservatives and Christians would hold businesses financially accountable for courting immorality, there would be a lot less pandering to homosexual activists.

My children will be pleased by this news. My family hasn't set foot in a McDonald's since the restaurant's support of NGLCC came to light.


Operation Rescue Condemns SD RTL for Opposing Pro-Life Measure

SIOUX FALLS, SD, Oct. 9 /Christian Newswire/ -- South Dakota Right To Life (SDRTL) has betrayed the innocent children that it once defended by joining with Planned Parenthood and the ACLU in active opposition to Measure 11, the proposed South Dakota ban on abortions that will be on the November ballot.

"We almost never publicly criticize other pro-life groups, but this time we cannot keep silent while South Dakota Right To Life actively works to ensure that as many babies as possible continue to be aborted in their state. They are out of step with nearly every credible pro-life group in the nation that has worked to support this abortion ban," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "It's time they changed their name to 'South Dakota Right To Die.'"

In their most recent newsletter, SDRTL used hypocritical reasons for opposing Measure 11, stating:

South Dakota Right to Life opposes Initiative 11, the so-called abortion ban, not only because it fails to protect all life from conception to natural death, but more importantly because it names specific lives expendable, those conceived from rape or incest and those who threaten their mother's health. We believe it is the wrong bill at the wrong time and that it is presumptuous to believe it will save over 95% of the babies now aborted in South Dakota. We encourage pro-lifers to instead channel their energies toward electing a pro-life president and pro-life representatives on both the state and national levels.

"Measure 11 was never meant to protect all life from conception to natural death. It was meant to save as many babies as possible by banning abortions except in the rarest of circumstances. It's never the 'wrong time' to save a life, and there is nothing presumptuous about expecting people to obey the law," said Newman. "One has to wonder why the SDRTL is so adamant about making sure every baby possible continues to die."

In a referendum last year, South Dakota defeated a similar abortion ban that only provided for an exception to save the life of the mother. Measure 11 added exceptions for rape and incest, after polling data indicated that such exceptions would insure passage.

"Measure 11 is not making any life 'expendable.' It is saving every one it can under the circumstances. To say otherwise is hypocritical coming from a group that is willing to expend the lives of thousands of babies yearly by opposing Measure 11," said Newman. "And the hypocrisy doesn't stop there. They encourage their membership to instead invest their efforts in the McCain/Palin ticket, when McCain supports destructive human embryonic experimentation. By their logic, they are making the lives of human embryos 'expendable.'"

"SDRTL needs to get out of bed with Planned Parenthood and rejoin the pro-life movement, before they get innocent blood on their hands."

About Operation Rescue®
Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation. Operation Rescue recently made headlines when it bought and closed an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas and has become the voice of the pro-life activist movement in America. Its activities are on the cutting edge of the abortion issue, taking direct action to restore legal personhood to the



This is the ad on the back of the SDRTL newsletter


The Obama Chronicles, Part 9

Ultra-liberal MoveOn.org has spent $4 million backing Barack Obama.


Conservatives Have Misled the American People

Mary Mitchellon at the Chicago Sun-Times says Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's aggressive, "negative tone" as she exposed Barack Obama's association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers is "dangerous." Mitchellon also says Palin should "apologize to the Obama campaign and the American people."

I think Mitchellon has a point.

Conservatives have indeed been misleading liberals--and the nation--for many years now.

As a group, conservatives have led people to believe we are too ashamed of our beliefs to articulate them boldly in the arena of ideas.

We misled people into thinking we were doormats who wouldn't stand up for what is important to us.

If conservatives showed up at all to the fight, we were usually few in number, huddled quietly in our little corners and spoke in soft voices so as not to provoke the ire of the "mainstream" media and other liberals in the opposition. And we have been very careful to not play aggressively, lest the opposition say we're "mean."

And because of this deception we as conservatives have perpetrated on the people of America--including"mainstream" media and other liberals--they have become accustomed to having the field to themselves.

Then here comes Sarah Palin who is refusing to play by these established rules for conservatives.

Oh, probably at the advice of some of her handlers...

...READ MORE...


The Obama Chronicles, Part 8

Bill O'Reilly examines Barack Obama's worldview, specifically how he views the world, evil, national security and foreign policy.



The Obama Chronicles, Part 7

Bill O'Reilly calls Barack Obama on the carpet for his Marxist wealth-redistribution philosophy on taxes.

Obama wants to punish enterprise and success and give to those who haven't earned it.

If you take something that belongs to someone else against their will, that isn't fairness--that's theft.


Hoosier Madness

Indiana blogger Paul Ogden has this report that is being linked all over the blogoshpere:

It's the elephant in the room that Indiana election officials don't talk about. Voter registration numbers in the counties have been growing dramatically far above what is possible given the population.

[…]

I knew that the numbers would start exceeding 100% at some point and the election officials couldn't keep ignoring the elephant in the room - how do you have more registered voters than people eligible to vote? Well Indianapolis has now reached that point. Let's do the math.

According to STATSIndiana, In 2007, Indianapolis/Marion County had an estimated population of 876,804. Of that number 232,607 were below 18 years of age, for a total of 644,197 people in Marion County/Indianapolis 18 or over and thus eligible to vote. (Indiana allows felons to vote as long as they are not incarcerated).

So we have 644,197 people eligible to be registered in Marion County/Indianapolis, and 677,401 people registered. Congratulations go to Indianapolis for having 105% of its residents registered!
Indianapolis residents have wondered for years how Julia Carson kept getting re-elected to Congress. I guess we know the answer.


Senate Candidate Dykstra on Health Care Reform

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joel Dykstra talks about health care and what is needed for reform in this video.

Dykstra has lived overseas in England and Italy under government health care systems, so he has experienced first-hand what these systems are like--and realizes they are the last thing we want here in the United States.

"Free" health care doesn't work very well, and involves a heavy tax burden--no matter how much or how little the use the service.

"Free" government health care also involves rationing and long, long waiting periods (how long can you wait when you're hurting...or perhaps even dying?)

Dykstra also points out that many of the socialist systems in Europe have behind-the-scenes private health care systems that can be accessed by those wealthy enough to go outside the pitiful nationalized system the common people are subjected to.


South Dakota doesn't need to re-elect a representative in the U.S. Senate from a party which is hurtling down the path to a nationalized health care debacle; we need a representative who is dedicated to fixing our system and returning it to the free-market model that made America great.

And maintaining consumer involvement and personal choice--things that would go out the window under a government health care system.

I know; I, too, lived in England for three years and have experienced government health care for myself. It is NOT something we want here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.


Health Care Cannot Be a Right

Why Health Care Cannot be a Right
As Bob Ellis has argued in a post today, health care for all would require imposing on some citizens the burden of bearing the cost of the “right” for others. No right given by God and recognized in our Constitution contains similar requirements. A true “right” cannot demand the labor of others. A “right” is self-sufficient, requiring nothing of others except their respect.

If, however, the argument is that health care should be a right for all Americans because it is something we all need and it is fundamental to living a healthy, productive life, then let’s get even more fundamental. How about universal housing for all Americans? Yes, I know that is basically what was tried that led to the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but seriously, shelter is one of our most basic needs. Why shouldn’t government provide it for everyone?

And if housing is a fundamental right, how about clothing? Millions of Americans are inadequately clothed and would be healthier and happier if only this basic need was provided by government.

Alright then, what about food? We all need daily sustenance and who can deny that millions of Americans do not get an adequate diet and are deficient in many important nutrients. How can a wealthy country like the United States stand by and let this happen? Shouldn’t we be advocating "universal groceries" for all Americans?

Of course, these proposals are absurd. America was built by self-reliant men and women who were willing to work hard and sacrifice much to achieve their dreams. Even the suggestion of government hand-outs would have been thought un-American to these hardy souls. They could never have imagined that one day their progeny would be greedily pawing their way to the teats of the great government sow.

The promise of universal health care is not what it is claimed to be. It is an axiom of economics that when something is free (or perceived to be free) then supply can never meet demand. Consider the example of free food for all Americans. If it were announced today that the government would begin providing free food for everyone the supermarket shelves would be bare by evening. It would take a massive government bureaucracy to control and ration food distribution and still many people would be dissatisfied claiming that they got only frozen chicken when their neighbors got fresh T-bone steak. With increased demand the government would have to reduce payments to the food producers (in order to control costs) and their production would reasonably decline further exacerbating the shortage of supply relative to demand. This is precisely what happened in the former Soviet Union. Most of us remember seeing newsreels of Muscovites standing in long lines to get into a market and once inside finding that most everything was gone and the shelves were bare. That, friends, is what healthcare will become if given over to government bureaucrats.


The Fate of Republican Government

American Minute from William J. Federer

Lewis Cass was born OCTOBER 9, 1782. A Brigadier-General in the War of 1812, Lewis Cass was Governor of the Michigan Territory where he made Indian treaties, organized townships and built roads. Appointed Secretary of War by President Andrew Jackson, Lewis Cass was a Senator, Secretary of State for President James Buchanan and the 1848 Democrat Presidential Candidate.

The State of Michigan placed his statue in the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall. Lewis Cass stated: "Independent of its connection with human destiny hereafter, the fate of republican government is indissolubly bound up with the fate of the Christian religion, and a people who reject its holy faith will find themselves the slaves of their own evil passions and of arbitrary power."

In 1846, Lewis Cass wrote from Washington, D.C.: "God, in His providence, has given us a Book of His revealed will...to teach us what we ought to do here, and what we shall be hereafter."

In a Eulogy for Daniel Webster, December 14, 1852, Lewis Cass stated: "He died in the faith of the Christian - humble, but hopeful - adding another to the long list of eminent men who have searched the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and have found it to be the word and the will of God."

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.


Palin Gets 'Em Fired Up in Omaha

Sarah Palin fires up a crowd in Omaha! Omaha absolutely loves this gal!

This is some jerky home video, but it conveys how enthusiastic folks are for the Alaska governor.

These bitter clingers to their guns and religion were on fire!

When are we going to make this the Palin-McCain ticket?



McCain Video on Obama-Ayers Association

The John McCain campaign is finally running an ad on Barack Obama's associations with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weathermen who bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and many other government buildings.

Obama wants us to think Ayers is "just some guy from the neighborhood" and ignore that his political career was launched in Ayer's living room, and that they have worked together on numerous projects--including both serving on the board of an organization Ayers founded.

Why is Barack Obama surrounded by people who loathe and outright hate America?

What does it say about the judgment of someone who would associate with people like Ayers?

Do we want to elect someone to the White House who would associate with people like unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers?


Elli Schwiesow on Second Amendment Rights

The senate race for South Dakota's Legislative District 32 has garnered both local and state-wide attention.

With a Democrat being challenged by the Republican who gave him the greatest support in the 2006 campaign, and both being challenged by the Republican-running-as-an-Independent who defeated the Republican in the 2006 primary, nothing is normal or party-line in this race.

The players are incumbent Democrat Tom Katus, Republican Stan Adelstein, and Independent Elli Schwiesow.

Dakota Voice is publishing a series of articles over the weeks preceding the November 4 election examining Schwiesow's position on various issues.

Last time, Schwiesow talked about taxes. Today she talks about Second Amendment rights.



"I strongly support the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms," Schwiesow recently told me.

"I was the youngest girl in Brookings County to pass the gun safety course at 13 years old at the time," Schwiesow said proudly. "When I was growing up, we hunted pheasants and went deer hunting. I joined Second Amendment Sisters after coming to Rapid City and now I enjoy going to handgun shoots, and remain a member. I was at a shoot just recently."

So how does she do on the range? "I'm a very good shot," she said with a chuckle.

Schwiesow really commended the education and training provided by Second Amendment Sisters for females of all ages: from 10 to 80, from all different ethnic background's and walks of life.

Schwiesow said she supported the bill introduced in the legislature earlier this year to protect the gun rights of students attending South Dakota universities.

"Most of the kids who go to our universities are good kids seeking a higher education," she said. "In addition to hunting concerns, armed law-abiding citizens can actually save lives. While the drinking that sometimes goes on at college campuses can be a concern for some, I don't think that's going to be an issue any more than we see in the general population."

She called the Supreme Court overturn of the Washington D.C. gun ban earlier this year "a miracle" and a huge victory for Second Amendment right people.

Schwiesow said the most important reason we have the Second Amendment in the Constitution is, "Protection for our nation. Not just our homes, but to protect from invasion."

According to Schwiesow, the National Guard does a good job, but they cannot be everywhere at any given time, so the people need to be able to protect themselves.

Schwiesow was rated by the National Rifle Association (NRA) as A+, a rating awarded to very few people. She pointed out that Republican Adelstein has been rated F in the past(he is currently rated C), and Democrat Katus was rated F by the NRA.

Related:

South Dakota Family Policy Council Voter Guide
Project VoteSmart

Next time, Schwiesow discusses universal preschool and proposals that have been submitted to the South Dakota legislature to implement it in our state.


Video: Obama Says Health Care is a RIGHT

Unlike our normal rights (like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from self incrimination, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, etc.), Barack Obama believes in a new "right" which requires that government take property (money) from one person and give it to another.

Does my right to free speech require that the taxpayers buy me a newspaper? Does my right to keep and bear arms require a taxpayer-funded gun?

Obama's "right" to health care would require taxpayer funding and Marxist redistribution of wealth.



MCCAIN: I think it's a responsibility in this respect, in that we should have available and affordable health care to every American citizen, to every family member. And with the plan that -- that I have, that will do that. But government mandates I'm always a little nervous about. But it is certainly my responsibility. It is certainly small- business people and others. And they understand that responsibility. American citizens understand that. Employers understand that. But they certainly are a little nervous when Senator Obama says if you don't get the health care policy that I think you should have that you're going to get fined. And by the way, Senator Obama has never mentioned how much that fine might be. Perhaps we might find that our tonight.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, why don't -- why don't -- let's talk about this, Tom, because there -- there was just a lot of stuff out there that --

MR. BROKAW: Privilege, right or responsibility? Let's start with that.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for or my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in a hospital room arguing with insurance companies, because they're saying that this may be a preexisting condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that.


Libraries Accept Smut, Refuse Material Critical of Homosexuality

Isn't it nice how the tolerant, open-minded Left just can't see it's way to entertain anything critical of it's pet causes?

If someone even broaches the idea of not having the pro-homosexual "Daddy's Roommate" in a library...oh, the nerve! What CENSORSHIP!

But donate a book to a library which might point out the immorality of homosexuality, or perhaps the myriad health risks involved...oh, the nerve! How dare we offend homosexuals?

We used to consider it a worthy thing to warn people about dangerous behaviors; we seem to have "outgrown" such provincial attitudes.

Apparently the Left believes everyone is entitled not only to be free of offense, but deserves a right to destroy their body and soul without the slightest warning.

How enlightened of them.



Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Obamas Trillions That YOU Can Pay For

Who's going to pay for Barack Obama's $1 trillion in new government giveaways? Will Obama reach into his wallet to pay for it? Will the rest of his liberal friends on Capitol Hill reach into their wallets and pay for it?

No, YOU, the American taxpayer, will pay for it.

What happened to the enumerated government mandated by the U.S. Constitution? Is the Constitution now just a forgotten old shop rag in the corner?



Video: Full Town Hall Presidential Debate

I'm a little late in getting this posted, but who knows: maybe you're a little late in looking for it.

Here is the full video of last night's presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama.


Joe Biden Fear Mongers About Fear Mongering

I really shouldn't have been shocked, but I was. I've observed liberals in the wild for long enough, I should have known better. Still, there I was with my guard down when the liberal struck according to his natural instincts.

This morning I read from Breitbart.com that Joe Biden had engaged in some fear-mongering by branding Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's statements about Barack Obama's association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers "fear and loathing."

From Breitbart.com:


"You know, the idea here that somehow these guys are once again injecting fear and loathing into this campaign is ... I think it's mildly dangerous."

You have to love the audacity of these liberals...

READ MORE...


Planned Parenthood Covers Up Crime

Planned Parenthood is definitely not what you think.

While the organization claims to be simply interested in helping women, it harbors a lot of darkness.

We heard a few months ago about Planned Parenthood's racist roots. Those who have investigated this organization founded by Margaret Sanger will know of her racist leanings and disdain for people of color. But when the pro-life publication The Advocate called around to several PP clinics to make donations earmarked to abort "black babies" because there should be "less black kids out there," Planned Parenthood took this all in stride, accepting the donations and in one case calling the donors' racist motives "understandable."

We've also seen multiple incidents of Planned Parenthood covering for statutory rape and child molestation.

Now LifeNews brings word of fresh undercover investigations of Planned Parenthood's proclivity for covering up crimes against children.

READ MORE...


Obama Supporter Thinks Homeschoolers, Pro-Lifers, Gun Owners Threaten America

Democrat Mark Warner is running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican John Warner this year.

Warner made a splash recently when a tape was revealed in which he said pro-lifers, homeschoolers, Christians and gun owners are a threat to "what it means to be an American:

you're going to see a coalition that has just about completely taken over the Republican Party in this state and if they have their way, it's going to take over state government. It's made up of the Christian Coalition, it's made up of the right to lifers, it's made up of the NRA, it's made up of the homeschoolers, it's made up of a whole coalition of people that have all sorts of different views that I think most of us in this room would find threatening to what it means to be an American.

LifeNews
points out today that Mark Warner is a strong supporter of Barack Obama.

Why is Barack Obama--the man who wants to lead America--so surrounded and supported by people who loathe America and loathe the people and institutions that make America great?

Do we want someone in the White House who is so surrounded by people who loathe our country and the everyday Americans who love America so?


Victim of Weathermen Terrorist Attack Releases Statement

John M. Murtagh, a practicing attorney and member of the city council in Yonkers, New York, has released a statement today in which he says that when he was 9 years old, his home was firebombed by the Weathermen, the domestic terrorist group Barack Obama-associate Bill Ayers belonged to.

The City Journal ran a story on this attack several months ago where Murtagh tells what happened during this firebombing, and what life was like for this boy afterward:

Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night.

I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother’s pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn’t leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS.

For the next 18 months, I went to school in an unmarked police car.

This is the statement released by Murtagh today:
ARLINGTON, Va., October 8 /Standard Newswire/ -- Today, John M. Murtagh made the following statement on Barack Obama's relationship with William Ayers:

"When I was 9 years-old the Weather Underground, the terrorist group founded by Barack Obama's friend William Ayers, firebombed my house. Barack Obama has dismissed concerns about his relationship with Ayers by noting that he was only a child when Ayers was planting bombs at the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. But Ayers has never apologized for his crimes, he has reveled in them, expressing regret only for the fact that he didn't do more.

"While Barack Obama once downplayed his relationship with Ayers, today his campaign took that deceit one step further. Barack Obama now denies he was even aware of his friend's violent past when, in 1995, Ayers hosted a party launching Obama's political career. Given Ayers' celebrity status among the left, it's difficult to believe. The question remains: what did Obama know, and when did he know it? When did Obama learn the truth about his friend? Barack Obama helped Ayers promote his book in 1997, served on charitable boards with him through 2002, and regularly exchanged emails and phone calls with him through 2005. At what point did Barack Obama discover that his friend was an unrepentant terrorist? And if he is so repulsed by the acts of terror committed by William Ayers, why did the relationship continue? Any honest accounting by Barack Obama will necessarily cast further doubt on his judgment and his fitness to serve as commander in chief.

"Barack Obama may have been a child when William Ayers was plotting attacks against U.S. targets -- but I was one of those targets. Barack Obama's friend tried to kill my family."

In February 1970 John Murtagh's father was a New York State Supreme Court justice presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at their home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. A few weeks after the attack, the New York contingent of the Weathermen blew themselves up making more bombs in a Greenwich Village townhouse. In late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers's wife, promised more bombings.

Why would Barack Obama go to Weatherman Bill Ayers' home and allow this man to help launch his political career?

Why would Barack Obama join the Chicago Annenberg Challenge founded by Ayers, work on its board with Ayers and on other projects with Ayers?

Ayers remains unrepentant for his behavior, which included bombings of the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and other government buildings.

Would you associate with someone like Bill Ayers?

Would you vote for someone who would associate with him?


Leftist Radicals Defend Unrepentant Terrorist Ayers

It seems a bunch of Leftist educational elitists have banded together in defense of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

WorldNetDaily reports hundreds of academic elites have signed a statement of support for Ayers.

Do they really expect this to mean anything to average Americans? How stupid do these elitists think we are? Pretty stupid, I'm sure...but I'm equally sure we're not.

They include lots of lofty sentiments about "challenging orthodoxy" and dogma, and say that characterizations of Ayers as an “unrepentant terrorist” and “lunatic leftist” are "unrecognizable to those who know or work with him."

Really? If Ayers has repented of his terrorism, I'd really like to see that. The last I knew, Ayers was still saying

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

He also recently bashed Americans fighting to keep the South Vietnamese free from the oppression of communist thugs.

Ayers also and bashed capitalism as being "built on exploitation, theft, conquest, war and racism."

He also said capitalism "must be defeated."

Since Barack Obama went to this man's home for a meet-and-greet launching Obama's political career, and Obama has worked with Ayers on various projects around Chicago, do we really want to elect someone who associates with a person who STILL holds such loathing for America?

Ayers isn't an "unrepentant terrorist" or “lunatic leftist”? These academics either can't or wont' admit that he is both, because they have too much love for "lunatic Leftists" to either see it or admit it.


 
Clicky Web Analytics