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 25, 2008

Journalism Lives!

I guess Sean Hannity is wrong. Journalism is not dead! At least, not quite.

AlSaliybiyyah posted the following video on YouTube and included these comments:

The Obama campaign whined about WFTV being "unprofessional" when it dared to dish out some tough questions to Vice President hopeful, Joe Biden.

The Obama spokesperson issued this statement about the interview:

"There's nothing wrong with tough questions, but reporters have the very important job of sharing the truth with the public -- not misleading the American people with false information. Senator Biden handled the interview well; however, the anchor was completely unprofessional. Senator Biden's wife is not running for elected office, and there are many other stations in the Orlando television market that would gladly conduct a respectful and factual interview with her."

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election."
Category: News & Politics



The Orlando-Semtinel: “Obama campaign cuts off WFTV after interview with Joe Biden”

E-Mail Barbara West: barbara.west@wftv.com


Allegations of Vote Fraud in South Dakota Pro-Abortion Campaign

We knew a lot of money and people were coming into South Dakota to try and defeat our pro-life Initiated Measure 11. But today brought news of some new and shady efforts to influence South Dakota elections.

KSFY is reporting that the South Dakota Campaign for UnHealthy families is facing allegations of voter fraud.

UnHealthy Families (official name: "Healthy Families," but my ability to utter hypocritical statements only goes so far) is the pro-abortion group fighting South Dakota's pro-life Initiated Measure 11.

Initiated Measure 11 would prohibit all abortions in South Dakota except those for rape, incest, to protect the health of the mother, or to protect the life of the mother.

VoteYesForLife.com, the group supporting Initiated Measure 11, says within the last couple of days they learned that a concerned citizen who supports Measure 11 tells them that UnHealthy Families is encouraging out-of-state visitors who are visiting South Dakota to register and vote in our election.

At this point, the UnHealthy Families campaign is denying it.

KSFY says Sara Rabern with the Attorney General's Office isn't aware of any information regarding this. However, Attorney General Larry Long has "no comment." Perhaps he is aware of something Ms. Rabern hasn't yet learned of.

According to SDCL 12-3-1, it is illegal for someone to vote in a South Dakota election when they have no intent to remain in the state. The voter registration form specifically makes this stipulation to which the registrant must agree.

* I actually live at and have no present intention of leaving the above address;

South Dakota law, SDCL 12-1-4, defines "residence" as

the place in which a person has fixed his or her habitation and to which the person, whenever absent, intends to return

According to a VoteYesForLife.com press release,

A transcript of the audio file clearly indicates evidence of voter fraud during a conversation between "Eduardo" and a man named Josh at the Campaign for Healthy Families headquarters in Sioux Falls earlier this week.

"Eduardo" and Josh discuss how it is that "South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families" Spokesman Chris Cassidy is able to vote in South Dakota since he is also currently a resident of California, only here for the election, and plans to go home when the election is over. Josh, an employee of the "Campaign for Healthy Families," encouraged "Eduardo" that he could do the same. This admission is clearly a violation of point #3 (I actually live at and have no present intention of leaving the above address;) of the declaration that citizens sign when they register to vote in South Dakota .

Audio of the incident is available here in mp3 audio format, and a transcript of the incident is available here.

Here is part of the transcript:

Eduardo: Yeah but, if you have an address…

Josh: Yeah, it’s good

Eduardo: …even if my, my driver’s license says California

Josh: Yeah but you can, there’s people, you know, people who work here who are like Chris, anybody’s who’s here now during the election that are going to leave after.

Eduardo: He’s from Oakland right?

Josh: Yeah.

Eduardo: I’m from Riverside. How long has Chris lived here?

Josh: Oh, he’s just here working on the campaign.

Eduardo: That’s it?

Josh: Yep.

And

Antonio: Sometimes they bend the law on some things.

Eduardo: So Chris chose to vote here.

Antonio: Yes. Yes.

Eduardo: But he’s going back. Once you vote you can go back, if you want?

Antonio: Yeah, of course, you can switch, it doesn’t matter how many times you switch your registration

Eduardo: And it doesn’t matter if I’m legally living here as long as I have the address.

Antonio: Yep, absolutely

There has already been more than enough lying and deception from pro-abortion forces in this campaign already. We don't need more...but it looks like we may have gotten it anyway.

Why can't they just debate the issue on the merits of their pro-abortion argument and let the voters decide? Could it be because they realize their argument, if it was clearly known, has no merits...and that they are too desperate to maintain access to abortion on demand, abortion as birth control?

Stay tuned for more updates as this story develops...


Against All Enemies

I and millions of others have taken the following oath administered to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States. This oath does not have an expiration date.

“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…So help me God.”

Domestic enemies abound. They are those that seek to subvert the Constitution or do harm to the people of the United States of America.

William Ayers is a terrorist, a traitor, and a coward (as seen in the preceding post). Barack Obama has not been forthright to questions about his relationship with Ayers. Can we be sure that he will honor and uphold the oath that he seeks to take in January?


Latest Chris Lien Billboard Action

Here's the latest Chris Lien for Congress ad.

Isn't that cool how they got the billboards to do that? :-)

We need this kind of proactive leadership representing South Dakota in the U.S. House.



Reporter Asks Bill Ayers If It Is Time for Repentance

Bill O'Reilly airs a confrontation from a reporter with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers outside Ayers' home.

Ayers is the Marxist, America-hating radical who bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, several courthouses, several police stations and other locations.

He is also an associate of Barack Obama and has been for a number of years. Apparently Obama has had no qualms about working alongside someone who would rather see America dead and gone.

Reporter Jesse Waters caught up with Ayers outside his home and asked him:

"How do you feel about being the centerpiece of this presidential election?"

Ayers ignored him.

Waters asked, "What's your relationship with Mr. Obama"

Ayers walked on and ignored him.

Waters then asked "Did he write a blurb for your book and sit on a panel with you?"

When they reached Ayers' steps, he said, "This is my property, would you please leave?"

(Sidenote: if Ayers is a Marxist, then he should proclaim that those steps are the people's property, not his. Oh, I forgot, just as in the Animal Farm, under Marxism, while all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others).

Waters asked Ayers, "Mr Ayers, do you want to take this opportunity to apologize for your terrorist acts?"

Ayers continued to ignore Waters and walked up to his door (excuse me, the people's door).

While Ayers was opening his/the people's door, Waters asked Ayers, "Don't you think it's time for some repentance?"

Ayers just ignored him and walked in the door.

As the door closed, Waters asked, "Do you still consider yourself an anarchist?"

Incidentally, during this exchange, Ayers was wearing a black shirt with a big communist star on the front.

O'Reilly said that after this attempted interview, Ayers called the police on Waters--the police Ayers bombed back in his Weathermen days.

Do we really want to risk electing a man who would associate with an anti-American Marxist like Bill Ayers?


New California Marriage Protection Amendment Ad

Here is the latest ad from the Yes on 8 folks, in support of California's Proposition 8 to put in the Calif. constitution what everyone once understood instinctively: that marriage is between a man and a woman.

As this ad illustrated, the homosexual activists not only want to totally redefine (and decimate) the family, they're perfectly willing to lie through their teeth to accomplish it.

They say Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools, yet a first grade class already went to watch a homosexual "wedding." They also say schools don't teach about marriage, yet the proof is there in black and white that they do.

It must be pretty pathetic to have to lie in order to get the people to support what you want. But what other choice do you have when you know people don't want what you do, and you have to fool them into believing it's something else? What choice do you have when you don't have positive facts and rationale on your side?



Traditional marriage is vital to kids and education

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

According to the California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association, the Proposition 8 marriage initiative has nothing to do with what is taught in California's public schools. The "Yes on 8" campaign claims that if homosexual marriage stays legal in California, kids will learn in public schools that this kind of "marriage" is normal and legitimate.

Proposition 8 is the ballot initiative in California that, if passed in November, will amend California's constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The initiative follows a decision by the California Supreme Court last May that legalized homosexual marriage.

In a recent ad run by "No on 8", California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O'Connell, says "Proposition 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids .... our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage."

To call this misleading would be the understatement of the 2008 campaign season.

The California Department of Education makes a comprehensive sex education curriculum available to every school district, but specifies that it's voluntary.

A poll done by the Public Policy Institute of California in 2006 showed that 78 percent of California's adults want comprehensive sex education in the public schools. According to the "Yes on 8" campaign, 96 percent of the school districts currently provide it.

If a school district does provide sex education, it must follow the guidelines of the California Department of Education. According to these guidelines, as they appear on the CDE website, the schools "shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships."

It doesn't take much to conclude that just about every kid in California's public school system gets some kind of instruction about marriage at some time. Should homosexual marriage remain a legal institution in California, there is little doubt that children graduating from California's public schools will see homosexuality and homosexual marriage as normal and legitimate as proverbial American apple pie.

If Proposition 8 has "nothing to do with schools or kids,'' then why has the California Teachers Association, the union of California's teachers and public school employees, contributed well over $1 million to the "No on 8" campaign?

The teachers union opposes school choice and vouchers, claiming on its Web site that vouchers "hurt students and schools by draining scarce resources away from public education." Yet the union somehow sees it helping education to write a check for a million dollars to keep homosexual marriage legal.

This same California teachers union weighed in earlier this year to support a California appeals court decision, subsequently reversed, which would have effectively shut down home schooling in the State of California.

It should concern everyone that the idea of parents having the freedom to choose where and how to educate their child is abhorrent to our public school establishment. And that this same public school establishment is obsessed with peddling left wing moral relativism to our kids.

Who is hurt the most? Our most vulnerable kids.

According to a report released earlier this year by Colin Powell's organization America's Promise, about 70 percent of kids who enter public school in our nation's 50 largest school districts graduate.

In Los Angeles, the second largest school district in the country, 45 percent of kids graduate. These are overwhelmingly Latino and black kids from largely troubled or broken families.

The greatest influence on how a child performs in school is the home from which that child comes. Take kids from already troubled homes and put them in schools where traditional values are at best taught as a footnote to a large menu of possible lifestyles, and the result is children and communities that have no future.

Maintaining the integrity marriage and family in California, the nation's largest state, is critical for children not just in California, but also in the whole country. Let's hope that Californians vote in November to save traditional marriage and help pull our nation back from moral oblivion.

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 24, 2008

Friday Five and the Upcoming Focus Action Election Webcast

Stuart Shepard will host Focus Action's Election Night webcast, which will offer a pro-family, pro-life, pro-marriage perspective.


Kids Understand what Jolie, Pitt Don't

It seems not only is it instinctive that men and women who want to start a family should marry, even children of Hollywood liberals understand this (until their liberal parents successfully lead them off track).

Fox News reports actress Angelina Jolie says her children watched two cartoon characters from the movie Shrek get married and wondered why she and Brad Pitt hadn't got married.

The 33-year-old actress said the kids want to know why Shrek and Fiona, characters from the movie "Shrek," got married and they haven't.

"We've done everything the wrong way around, but sooner or later the children will ask, you know, they watch films and ask questions," Jolie tells the European magazine.

Notice the child didn't ask, "Why are Shrek and Fiona doing it wrong?" The child instinctively knew something was not right in her home: "Shrek and Fiona got married. Why haven't you and daddy got married?"

Sexual relationships between men and women are natural; nothing else is. And marriage is the proper setting for sexual relationships between men and women; nothing else is.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

Oh, I forgot: they want sexual autonomy and don't care what's natural, moral...or good for the children.


Radical Liberal Group Contributes $1.1 Million to Oppose Measure 10

For Immediate Release

Pierre, SD - The radical left group, National Education Association contributed $1.1 million to the group opposing the South Dakota Open and Clean Government Act, YES on 10!

You might have seen one of the ads from the No on 10's big lie campaign. South Dakotans should feel comfortable in knowing that each one of their dishonest and desperate "Gag Law" commercials have been refuted as outright lies. YES on 10! will not take away anyone's personal right to speech and their ability to address elected officials, it simply prevents them from using tax dollars to pay for it.

"We now know according to No on 10's campaign spokesman Steve Willard, their big lie 'Gag Law' TV campaign would not have been possible without the funding the radical left, taxpayer subsidized, NEA" said Lee Breard, the Executive Director of the SD CAC.

"The NEA is a taxpayer subsidized organization that collects its dues from state chapters and payroll deduction of educators across the county," said Breard. "The problem is the NEA does not represent the values of many educators. The NEA uses its tax-subsidized funding to promote a radical liberal agenda through campaigning and lobbying."

Here are a few issues the NEA stands for and uses our tax-subsidized dollars to promote:

· Oppose school choice and vouchers
· Promote unlimited abortions
· Supports gay marriage
· Teach 5-8 year olds in the classroom that it is ok to be homosexual,
· Teach 5-8 year olds masturbation is ok
· Thoroughly explaining vaginal intercourse to 5-8 year olds
· Remove parental education rights
· Condoms for students in elementary school
· Radical liberal candidates
· Oppose private accounts for social security
· Support mandatory Pre-K

"I don't believe a majority of the great teachers in South Dakota support these radical issues. It is time to stop their hard earned dues and our tax dollars from being used by radical left groups such as the NEA," said Breard. "Every voter in South Dakota should take pause before buying into the Big Lie "Gag Law" campaign and look at who paid for the advertisement."

Join the majority of South Dakotans who are supporting YES on 10! It is time to stop our tax dollars from being used for lobbying and political campaigns.

The SD CAC is a non-partisan political non-profit organization that focuses on voter education and does not endorse candidates. We support: Efficiency and Accountability in Government, Limiting Government Spending, Comprehensive School Choice, and Private Property Rights.


Newsbusted Conservative Comedy 10/24/2008

Topics in today's show:

--Fidel Castro endorses Barack Obama;

--Washington state accidentally sends ballots to felons

--Warner Bros. blocks "Hanoi Hilton" to avoid helping John McCain

--Movie about Dan Rather's "Memogate" controversy?

--Best Buy gets a new logo



Video: Obama on White Suburbia and Racism

Here is the video you've been hearing about. It's of a 1995 interview--and more--of Barack Obama talking about how white Americans are racist and don't want to pay taxes because inner-city black Americans might get their tax dollars.

More promotion of victimhood over personal responsibility from The One, the Most Beneficent Lordship Barack Obama.

We just aren't "spreading the wealth" around the way His Lordship would like to see it; too much requirement that people create their own wealth; not enough softening of the blow from the consequences of bad personal decisions.

"My individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country."



Inviting Attack on America

I and others have said that Barack Obama's soft approach and willingness to coddle evil around the world will invite evil to attack us.

Obama doesn't understand that when the thugs and dictators and terrorists and belligerent around the world see weakness in America, they aren't impressed--it encourages them to strike a weak enemy.

As odd as it seems, apparently Obama's running mate Joe Biden realizes this as well, and admitted it recently.

Listen to this video to hear Biden talk about the attack against America that will surely come if Obama is elected.

America has projected strength since 911, and we have not been attacked. If we go back to projecting weakness again, this will surely come to pass.



Consequences of Bad Judicial Appointments

Barack Obama has made it clear he would ignore qualifications and go for judges who would support his liberal agenda, regardless of whether they go against the Constitution. In fact, almost all liberal agenda items go against the Constitution.

We need judges who will interpret law--not make law--and who will respect and uphold our Constitution as the highest law of the land...the standard to which all other laws must be held.


Forgotten Terrorist Manifesto: Prairie Fire

The investigative report at Zombietime has uncovered an old, almost-forgotten book written by Barack Obama's associate Bill Ayers called Prairie Fire.

Ayers is the domestic terrorist that Barack Obama served on a couple of boards with in Chicago and who helped launch Obama's political career in his livingroom. Ayers is also the terrorist whose group the Weather Underground bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and many other locations.

Obama has at first claimed Ayers was just "a guy in the neighborhood," then claimed he didn't know about Ayers' terrorist past, then claimed he thought Ayers was "rehabilitated."

Ayers has not been "rehabilitated" as his recent writings and interviews show.

But this Prairie Fire is a shocking look into Ayers life and beliefs when he was a young 1960s and 1970s radical--beliefs which he obviously still holds.

Incidentally, Ayers proudly lists this book on his own blog as a part of his resume. (If I had repudiated beliefs I once held, I would no longer call attention to those beliefs).

Zombietime found a copy of this book after a long search and has made several high-resolution scans of the book available on his website.

Some of the excerpts tell exactly the kind of Marxist, anti-American individual Bill Ayers is:

We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years. We are deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism.

Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside.

Remember that this was written at a time when the United States was in the middle of a terrible fight against communism worldwide and assaults against our allies by communists.

Interestingly, the book lists Sirhan Sirhan, Robert F. Kennedy's assassin, on the dedication page.

The book also states their intentions:
We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power, and build the new society.

Sounds like Ayers really loves America and her noble foundations, doesn't it?

Here is who the book was written for:
PRAIRIE FIRE is written to communist-minded revolutionaries, independent organizers and anti-imperialists

Among the bombings by Ayers' group listed in the book:

- Haymarket police statue, Chicago

- Chicago police cars

- New York City police headquarters

- Marin County Courthouse

- Long Island City Courthouse

- Department of Corrections, San Francisco

- Office of California Prisons, Sacramento

- Department of Corrections, Albany NY

- 103rd Precinct of New York City police

- Harvard Center for International Affairs

- U.S. Capitol

- MIT research center

- The Pentagon

- Draft and recruiting centers

- ROTC buildings

- ITT Latin America Headquarters

- National Guard Headquarters, Washington D.C.

- Presidio Army Base and MP Station, San Francisco

- Federal Offices of Health, Education and Welfare, San Francisco

Some more interesting excerpts from Ayers' book
THE BANNER OF CHE

The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war.

And
Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted. It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle.
Without mass struggle there can be no revolution.
Without armed struggle there can be no victory.

This is what Ayers had to say about the terrible turmoil of the 1960s (much of which he and those like him were responsible for):
The unique and fundamental condition of this time is the decline of U.S. imperialism. Our society is in social and economic crisis and assumptions about the U.S. are turned on their heads. These are hard conditions to live through. But they are favorable for the people and for revolution.

These conditions of constant change demand the weapon of theory. Like people everywhere, we are analyzing how to bring to life the potential forces which can destroy U.S. imperialism.

We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years. We are deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism.

Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside.

Our intention is to engage the enemy, to wear away at him, to harass him, to isolate him, to expose every weakness, to pounce, to reveal his vulnerability.

Our intention is to encourage the people, to provoke leaps in confidence and consciousness, to stir the imagination, to popularize power, to agitate, to organize, to join in every way possible the people's day-to-day struggles.

Our intention is to forge an underground, a clandestine political organization engaged in every form of struggle, protected from the eyes and weapons of the state, a base against repression, to accumulate lessons, experience and constant practice, a base from which to attack.

Ayers' makes clear not only their wholehearted desire to destroy the United States, but states their resolve to stick with the effort for the long haul (and there is every indication--through his own words--Ayers is still working on that goal):
PRAIRIE FIRE is based on a belief that the duty of a revolutionary is to make the revolution. This is not an abstraction. It means that revolutionaries must make a profound commitment to the future of humanity, apply our limited knowledge and experience to understand an ever-changing situation, organize the masses of people and build the fight. It means that struggle and risk and hard work and adversity will become our way of life, that the only certainty will be constant change, that the only possibilities are victory or death.

Does this next quote sound like anything you have heard from Ayers lately--even, anything like you have heard from people in a certain political party today:
Our job is to tap the discontent seething in many sectors of the population, to find allies everywhere people are hungry or angry, to mobilize poor and working people against imperialism

Think back over things you have heard on television or read in the newspaper in the past year; I'm sure you'll recall things which bear a striking resemblance to this intent and this language.

Listen also to this, and see if you hear any resemblance between it and the kind of rhetoric coming out of the Left:
Our final goal is the destruction of imperialism, the seizure of power, and the creation of socialism. Our strategy for this stage of the struggle is to organize the oppressed people of the imperial nation itself to join with the colonies in the attack on imperialism. This process of attacking and weakening imperialism involves the defeat of all kinds of national chauvinism and arrogance; this is a precondition to our fight for socialism.


Thanks to Joe the Plumber, we're having the first real public discussion of socialism in America for a long, long time--and that's a good thing, because it has been creeping into our society and institutions for decades.

Here's what Ayers' Prairie Fire has to say about socialism:
Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit. Socialism means control of the productive forces for the good of the whole community instead of the few who live on hilltops and in mansions. Socialism means priorities based on human need instead of corporate greed. Socialism creates the conditions for a decent and creative quality of life for all.

The book also has an anti-Israel section that calls for, among other things: ending Zionism, no "war for oil," stopping U.S. support for Israel, and so on. Have you heard this kind of smack recently?


A few key points Zombietime points out that I agree with and that people critically need to understand:

- Ayers was not simply protesting "against" the Vietnam War. Firstly, he wasn't against war in principle, he was agitating for the victory of the communist forces in Vietnam. In other words: He wasn't against the war, he was against our side in the war. This is spelled out in great detail in Prairie Fire.

- Ayers and his co-authors freely brag about their bombings and other violent and illegal acts

- Ayers is just as politically radical now as he was back then. He has never renounced the political views he professed in the 1960s and 1970s. The only difference is that now he no longer commits violence to achieve his goals. After his stint as the leader of the Weather Underground, he shifted to a different tactic: to spread his ideology under the aegis of academia. But the goal remains the same: to turn America into a communist nation. Ayers' contemporary writings contain many of the same ideas (and even the same phrases) found in Prairie Fire, just toned down to make them more palatable in polite society.

How does this all fit in with Barack Obama's association with Ayers? Zombietime says
And why is this relevant? Because if he believed it in 1974, and still believes it in 2008, then he almost certainly continued to believe it in 1995-2006, the period during which Barack Obama had his associations with Ayers. There is no evidence whatsoever that Ayers went through some "right-wing phase" (which would have been totally out of character) nor had any diminution of his political fervor. As far as anyone can tell, and according to Ayers himself, he has had a consistent and unchanged philosophy from the 1960s up until the present.

How very true.

It has also become clear that Barack Obama has associated with Ayers on various projects and on various levels over the past 13 years, and except for a stated denunciation when the association became public, Obama seems to have had no problem continuing to associate with this radical, America-hating individual who still seeks to subvert the people of the United States.

Do we really want someone who would associate with someone like Ayers to lead the United States?

Could we even survive such a proposition?

HT to Michelle Malkin for pointing out this piece at Zombietime.


Hundreds of Doctors and Gynecologists Voting Yes on Measure 11

Hundreds of doctors and gynecologists across the length and breadth of South Dakota are voting yes on Initiated Measure 11 because it is clear to them that Measure 11 will end abortion as birth control.

“It is unfortunate that the pro-abortion forces in America are determined to protect the abortion industry in South Dakota with lies and deceit,” said Brandi Gruis, Spokesperson for VoteYesForLife.com Campaign. “South Dakotans deserve better.”

Yes on Measure 11 is happy to announce the support of a 2000-member-strong group of ObGyn Doctors. AAPLOG (The American Association of ProLife Obstetricians and Gynecologists) represents 2000 ObGyns in South Dakota and across America. AAPLOG Vice President, Joseph DeCook, said, “We support (Measure 11) to attempt to save approximately 97% of babies who would otherwise be killed by abortions done for reasons other than rape, incest and life-threatening maternal conditions.”

Dr. Jane Gaetze, Sioux Falls OBGYN and supporter of “Yes on Measure 11” says, “Within the accepted standard of practice for OBGYN, I don’t find any part of Measure 11 to countermand anything I’m going to do in my life for my patients, ever.

Dr. Yvonne Seger, Sioux Falls OBGYN and supporter of “Yes on Measure 11” says “I support Measure 11 because I want to stop abortion from being used as birth control in the state of South Dakota.”


A Letter from a Christian in 2012 in Obama's America

Focus on the Family Action has published a hypothetical letter from a Christian written in the year 2012 after four years of a Barack Obama presidency.

The Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America is a startling but very possible--even likely--glimpse of what could happen.

Obama has made it clear that he plans to gut marriage and the family, and push a radical homosexual agenda for America.

He has also made it plain that he plans to gut our national defense. He also says he would engage in direct talks with belligerent leaders and nations like Iran.

Barack Obama has also proven he is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history, having vehemently defended the killing of infants born alive after failed attempts to abort them.

Barack Obama has also shown his contempt for serious Christians and law-abiding gun owners.

Barack Obama has long associations with people who loathe America like his racist, anti-American pastor of 20 years, his Chicago associate the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and his wife who only this year found a reason to be proud of her country for the first time.

God help us if the American people are insane enough to elect Barack Obama to the presidency. We will need every ounce of God's divine providence and protection we can get.

A letter from 2012 shows how a Democratic regime could undermine religious freedoms, the sanctity of human life and marriage.


Thursday, October 23, 2008

I Care About More

As important as the economy is, I care about more than that.

Do you?



Obama's Tax Plan a Middle Class Slam

When you "stick it to the rich" and hit business with higher taxes, the middle class pays the price.

Why should middle-class folks have to explain this to the man who wants to be president?


Analysis of McCain and Obama Tax Plans

A brief but good analysis of John McCain's tax plan and Barack Obama's tax plan.

If you're into economic growth, McCain's plan is obviously the way to go. If you're into greed and envy, and want to stick it to someone who has more than you, Obama's plan is obviously the way to go.

Rea Hederman, senior policy analyst and assistant director of Heritage's Center for Data Analysis, explains the differences between Barack Obama's and John McCain's tax plans.


Analysis: Polls are Stacked Against Republicans

Ronald Kessler has an interesting piece at Newsmax which illustrates how the polls have been skewed against Republicans.

And we're not just talking about asking questions in a snide manner in order to nudge the respondent, or slanted questions to shove the respondent toward the answer you want.

Sampling, of course, plays a big part. If you're sampling 40% Democrats and 25% Republicans (which is NOT the breakdown--not by a longshot), it would be very surprising if you didn't come out with the Dem on top.

But it's been a longstanding trend that, if you listen to the "mainstream" media, the Republican presidential candidate (usually any Republican candidate) is going to lose.

Looking back at polls over the years, “The errors in media polling rarely benefit a Republican,” Conway notes. “It wasn’t like anybody said, ‘Oh, Ronald Reagan will have a landslide in 1980.’ In fact you look back at the Dukakis numbers, the Perot numbers, there was always this presumption that the Republican was going to lose. Not just that the Democrat would win, but that the Republican was going to lose. There was a news report that concluded polls showed Kerry leading Bush 53 percent to 43 percent in 15 swing states.”

Exit polls also tend to favor Democrats unfairly, Conway says.

“Remember the exit polls in the last election all favored John Kerry,” Conway says. “And I had to shoot off a quick memo to people saying that exit polls are more illustrative and anecdotal, more qualitative than quantitative and scientific in nature, because it’s a self-selected population of people who actually reveal to a total stranger how they just voted.”

That herd instinct that I've often mentioned also makes an appearance:
“There’s a herd instinct,” Conway says. “For all the people in this country who say I want change, I love change, I want to join a revolution, they still go to McDonald’s every night in the minivan and order Number 3. America has a love affair with change that they don’t necessarily demonstrate.”

As examples, Conway cites the fact that most people want to get out of debt, get out of a bad relationship, find a job they love, and lose those last 12 pounds, but most of them never do.

I've long said that people know "the right answer" when asked--especially from a liberal elite. Many average people want to look smart and give the "intelligent" answer...which, since the elites are liberal, will be the liberal answer. Political correctness frequently skews polling results.

We certainly wouldn't want to assume a McCain-Palin win based simply on the fact that liberals have tried to rig the elections with the "depress the vote" effort in the past. After all, Sarah Palin's efforts aside, John McCain has run the most pathetic campaign I've seen since Bob Dole in 1996.

All the same, with the poll numbers running as close as they have been, I have said for some time that it's entirely possible McCain may win this thing--especially with Palin out there working her heart out for the campaign.

Go read Kessler's entire piece. It's a good education in some of the dynamics of polling. If you're a conservative, it'll help you overcome some of the "vote depression" propaganda the "mainstream" media is always sending your way.


Trick-or-Treating at Obama's House

Look who's Trick-or-Treating at Barack Obama's house. And look who paid for the candy.


From our friends at Americans for Limited Government.


Video: Inside Keloland with Joel Dykstra

KELO has posted their 'Inside KELOLAND' video with Joel Dykstra from a few evenings ago.

This is the one that Senator Tim Johnson backed out of at the last minute. KELO even offered to videotape a segment with him at his convenience, and he declined.

Joel Dykstra would represent South Dakota's interest--and the interest of the United States--much better in the U.S. Senate than Senator Johnson has.


Nice Try, Senator Obama

You tried to lead us off the scent of the trail to your relationship with your racist, anti-American pastor, but it didn't work.

You tried to lead us off the scent of the trail to your relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, but it didn't work.

Nice try, Senator Obama. We were just a little smarter than you thought we were.



Hatin' Palin: A Liberal Pastime

Only the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court hearings could rival the river of hate and animosity that has come out of the Left and their allies in the "mainstream" media over Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

In a month and a half, the media has investigated her and drilled her more than they have in over a year of Barack Obama's time in the presidential race.

And of the little they've been able to find to complain about, very little of it has been of any substance at all.

I look forward to seeing how these propaganda artists will deal with the first woman vice president.

Danniel Henninger discusses the "cheap shots" taken at Sarah Palin and highlights some problems with the political system. (Oct. 23)



Homosexual Coming Out Day in Kindergarten

Homosexual activists and their "useful idiots" just can't wait to indoctrinate your children to accept this immoral, unnatural and unhealthy behavior.

WorldNetDaily reports kindergartners at Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science in Hayward, California are having Gay Straight Alliance clubs and "Coming Out Day" pushed on them.

Can't you even wait for them to hit puberty before you try to corrupt them?

Of course, social engineers know they must get to the children as young as possible, before their parents have a chance to "corrupt" them with morals, values, common sense and the like. If they can get kids five-years-old and younger, they hope accepting this perversion of human sexuality will be instinctive and unquestioned for them.

According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students.

The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud" will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with "gay" or transgender twists, to include "Jane and the Beanstalk."

Some parents only recently noticed posters promoting tomorrow's "Coming Out Day." When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a representative replied, "Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar."

When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said the Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. "Coming Out Day" is not listed on the district's online school calendar.

Unless California's marriage protection amendment, Proposition 8, is passed next month, there will be a floodgate of this kind of moral subversion.

Good people have stood idly by while the immoral have run away with our culture. If good people don't stand up, draw a line in the sand and start working to regain ground NOW, it will soon be too late.


Thinking Beyond the Rhetoric and the Skin Color

Great ad! It would be great and historic to see America's first black president...if he was a good man with a strong moral center, who thoroughly understood the principles of freedom and human dignity upon which America was founded.

Unfortunately, we do not have a black candidate like that in the race this time.

We should always vote values...before skin color, before sex, before background, before anything.


Mad Mike on The Engine of the Economy

Mad Mike explains a few things about business, jobs, the economy and taxes that liberals either don't understand or don't want to understand.

Whether it's just that they haven't spent enough time in the real world, or they're too enamored with Karl Marx's writings, or whether envy and greed is just more attractive to them than hard work and accomplishment; either way, liberals just don't understand how America is supposed to work.



Common Sense Energy Thinking

Let's have some common sense energy solutions. One thing is guaranteed: you're not going to get any from the Democrats.



House Democrats: Abolish 401k Tax Breaks, Create New Tax

What do Democrats do when they see a system or program that isn't working? They throw more money at it, or recreate the same system under another name, or both.

Social Security (or rather, Socialist Security) has been revealed as the glorified government-mandated ponzi scheme that it is, and the Democrats answer is to create another version of it.

Workforce Management says House Democrats are looking at another plan to tighten the goverment's grip on your life, your retirement, and take a bigger chunk of your paycheck.

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.

At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”

So the Dems want to take away the tax breaks for 401ks...and tax you yet another 5%???

And this idiotic program would be nothing more than a Social Security spinoff. It's just more of the same government-mandated socialist ineptitude.

The definition of "reform" in the Democrat playbook is ludicrous. Keep doing things that don't work. Come up with new ways to do the same things that don't work. Tax more. It'll all be fine.

We need to end that--now.


What to Do When in Doubt...

by Doris Gordon
Libertarians for Life
Copyright © January, 2003


Sooner or later in the debate over abortion, the question of "the person" must Did you catch Phil Donahue's program about abortion? (CSNBC, January 8, 2003) A young woman in the audience asked Planned Parenthood's president, Gloria Feldt, "Is it true that the fetus becomes a human being at the moment of conception?" After a commercial break, Donahue recast the question: "Gloria, you were asked, as president of Planned Parenthood, does life begin at conception, or when does it begin? And how do the Planned Parenthood people respond to the question?"

Feldt replied, "Right. The question, I think, really, is more properly, when does personhood begin because the sperm is alive and the egg is alive."

How's that? Sperm and egg are only gametes, reproductive cells. They are not organisms, new members of the species Homo sapiens. In contrast, a human fetus is an organism, a new life, a new human being.

Would that Donahue could have called on the late Alan Guttmacher, M.D., who was once president of Planned Parenthood. PP's research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, was named after him. In his 1933 book Life in the Making, Guttmacher wrote: "We of today know that man is born of sexual union; that he starts life as an embryo within the body of the female; and that the embryo is formed from the fusion of two single cells, the ovum and the sperm. This all seems so simple and evident to us that it is difficult to picture a time when it was not part of the common knowledge." But one of the guests on the Donahue program, William Donohue, seized a moment to say that in 1963, Planned Parenthood said that abortion "kills the life of a baby after it has begun."

Continuing her response to Donahue, Feldt added, "And the question of when does a fetus become a person deserving of full, say, citizenship is really more a moral and religious question."

No. Citizenship is a constitutional question. It is defined in the Fourteenth Amendment which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But notice, the Fourteenth Amendment also makes it clear that the right to life depends on personhood, not citizenship: "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So personhood and not citizenship is the pivotal point, and on that, Feldt continued, "In my religion, the fetus becomes a person when it is born, but other religions have different points of view."

To argue for delayed personhood, as Feldt did here, is to use a double standard: that some human offspring are persons and others not.

Feldt continued, "And that's the point. People need to be able to make their own moral and spiritual judgments, based on their own religions and their own sets of values."

Reading between the lines, she is claiming that it should be up to those who want to kill to say whether their intended targets are human beings/persons -- and then to kill them. That is like telling hunters, "If it's not clear whether what's hidden by the brush is man or beast, shoot anyway, if that's your decision." Lovely. Under such a principle, nobody is safe.

Speaking of killing, Feldt's Planned Parenthood runs the largest chain of abortion clinics in the country.

Playing on genuine concern

Many people are genuinely unsure about what marks the onset of personhood. Exploiting such confusion, Planned Parenthood has run a full-page newspaper ad that said: "On this question there is a tremendous spectrum of religious, philosophical, scientific and medical opinion. It's been argued for centuries" (The Washington Post, October 6, 1988).

Reading between the lines again, either this is Planned Parenthood's best answer, or they prefer to ignore the substantial arguments others are making for immediate personhood at fertilization.

The Supreme Court used an argument similar to Planned Parenthood's in the January 22, 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. There, Justice Harry A. Blackmun announced, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

There is strong consensus among those expert in the discipline of human embryology that fertilization is the scientific marker for the onset of the human being, but the Court does not seem willing to hear their case. In Roe, the Court drew an arbitrary line at birth.

What should lawmakers and judges do?

At the beginning of the Donahue program, the announcer asked, "And what role should government play in deciding when life begins?"

Its role should be, first of all, to address the science. It should hold hearings that focus attention on what human embryologists have to say on the merits of fertilization as the scientific marker event. Ever since Dolly the sheep was born, Congress and the National Institutes of Health have been holding hearings on human cloning. But, as C. Ward Kischer, a retired human embryologist, has emphasized, not one human embryologist has ever testified, let alone served on a panel of any of those hearings.

Regarding the theological question of the person, there is only one real expert on that -- God. Because, as many religious abortion choicers have noted, there is no consensus among the various faiths on when personhood begins, no theologian is clearly in an unassailable position, from a legal perspective, to speak for God.

Is there another field of study on personhood that we can turn to? Yes, philosophy -- a field of study that even atheists, such as myself, can handle using ordinary human reason. In governmental hearings about the onset of personhood, the participants should be people, religious or otherwise, whose cases are based on ordinary reason. A good beginning for the hearings would be for all participants to give their own definitions of the term "person," so that everyone will know what they are talking about. It would also be good if participants prepared articles explaining and defending their positions, and if all participants studied all the articles. Armed with such knowledge, each participant would be better positioned to consider and reply to the other side.

Both sides have the intellectual burden of proof. If one side's arguments overcomes the arguments of the other side, the public will notice.

By the way, I am not torn by doubt on personhood. I have full confidence in the Libertarians for Life position: that personhood begins when the human being begins -- at fertilization. To see how we argue for it, please go to our website, www.L4L.org.

The benefit of the doubt

Even with the best of intentions, resolving the questions of personhood and, therefore, whether abortion is homicide (the killing of one human being, person, by another) will not be easy. It is likely to take much time. What should lawmakers and judges do in the meantime?

When they are undecided on pivotal questions affecting two contending parties, and when they cannot avoid making a decision, tossing a coin will not do. The only reasonable course is a time-honored one: Weigh the possible injuries that would be imposed by a wrongful decision either way -- and then choose to avoid the worst possibility.

When a human being's life is on the block, a proper legal system gives the benefit of the doubt to life. This is why even advocates of capital punishment call for stringent proof. If individuals accused of felonies get the benefit of such doubt, why not the beings in the womb?

What possible wrongful injuries should be considered? For the pregnant woman, it is a partial and temporary loss of liberty; for her fetus, it is the total and permanent loss of life and therefore liberty as well.

The answer is obvious. The law should give the benefit of the doubt to life.

Reprinted by permission of Libertarians for Life.


Sarah Palin Tribute Song - Rich & Mario

Every man needs a woman like this (I already have one like this), an All-American woman. America needs a woman like this, too!



Are You Joe the Plumber?

All hard-working self-sufficient Americans are Joe the Plumber.



Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Palin: Obama's Looming Crisis is Biden's Next Speech

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin tells it like it is on Joe Biden's ineptitude and Barack Obama's lack of resolve and judgement--qualities necessary for a U.S. president in a dangerous world.

Go, girl!

"The real problem is that these warnings from Joe Biden are similar to his earlier assessment of Barack Obama. It wasn’t so long ago that he said Barack Obama wasn’t up to the job, and that, quote, 'the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'"



Behar Wouldn't Know a Terrorist if One Blew Her Up

This ditsy Joy Behar woman from The View really needs to pull out a dictionary--or better yet, an encyclopedia and get caught up with intelligent folks.

She says Rush Limbaugh is a terrorist (but, I'd venture, doesn't see Barack Obama's domestic terrorist associate Bill Ayers as one).

She also fails to realize that Barack Obama's philosophies are far closer to communism than they are to capitalism or Americanism.

"He’s a terrorist. Rush Limbaugh is a terrorist. You heard it here ladies and gentlemen."



Sanford Health Letter: Initiated Measure 11 Fits Within Current Standards

Earlier today VoteYesForLife.com, the group supporting the pro-life Initiated Measure 11 in South Dakota, held a press conference to share a letter (see below) received from Sanford Health in Sioux Falls yesterday.

An internal memo at Sanford was recently "leaked," which pro-abortion forces in South Dakota made public.

The memo expressed concerns that the medical requirements of IM 11 were not clearly defined, and that the requirement in the rape exception that the crime of rape be reported to law enforcement authorities so the perpetrator can be pursued may be "detrimental to the woman's emotional well-being and therefore interfere with the physician-patient relationship."

Aberdeen lawyer Rory King and others from the legal team at VoteYesForLife.com met with Sanford officials yesterday to discuss IM 11. The outcome of that meeting was that Sanford now sees that the language of the measure is clear, and that the care Sanford provides is "consistent with the general intent of Initiated Measure 11, except for the provision for fetal anomaly or deformity."

Studies and the testimony of many women has shown that carrying the child to term enables women to cope much better with the loss of their child. Further, doctors can be mistaken about a diagnosis.

The letter from Sanford further states

Simply stated, Sanford does not perform elective abortions, and is only involved in the unfortunate termination of a pregnancy in the extreme case of a life or health threat to the mother, the terminal, or already expired, fetus. Annual numbers of these instances are small and average less than six (6) per year. Since Sanford will soon deliver nearly half of the babies in South Dakota annually, it is clear we are an organization committed to life while we recognize the dignity and frailty of our human mortality.

The letter also admits their internal memo could be potentially misleading as it takes a "worst case scenario" approach, and says they will make the VoteYesForLife.com analysis available to their physicians as a complimentary alternative perspective.

The letter further states

You argued that, for a physician to violate the intended law, he or she would have to:

1. Have demonstrated an understanding and knowledge of a medical standard pertaining to the case or procedure, and

2. Knowingly disregard the medical standard in the performance of a procedure or delivery of care.

Sanford counsel concurs that "intent" would have to be demonstrated as well. This is the standard of care we employ today.

The letter also commends the VoteYesForLife.com campaign for "your thoughtful and genuine approach to manage this difficult issue with the sensitivity of our physicians and the protection of our independence in caring for all who come to us."

I'm sure this has been unpleasant for Sanford Health to have gone through, but in the end it has fostered greater understanding for all South Dakotans of the reasonableness and practicality of Initiated Measure 11.

It has also exposed the fact that pro-abortionists don't want to debate Initiated Measure 11 on it's merits and intent; they know that they have no reasonable argument against it. They can only resort to distortions and deceptions in the hopes they can fool enough South Dakota voters into voting against the measure which polls said in 2006 that 75% of South Dakotans would support.

Confusion and doubt are their allies, and facts are their enemies as this outcome with Sanford has illustrated. It's a terrible place to be when the facts are your enemy.

Let us hope the pro-abortionists will now have the integrity to stop the deception and allow the voters to see the issue clearly.

South Dakotans are ready to end abortion as birth control in our state. The voters are ready to end the killing for convenience in South Dakota.

Kudos to Sanford Health for taking a closer look at Initiated Measure 11, and for having the integrity to admit that it is not the problematic measure they originally perceived it to be.

Would that many doctors in the South Dakota Medical Association--and many average South Dakotans, for that matter--would also take a closer look at the bill and admit that it would be hard to conceive a more effective, yet more reasonable, abortion measure than this one.






Fox News Picks Up on Ayers Anarchist Interview

Fox News and other media outlets are picking up on the 2002 interview of Barack Obama's associate, the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

See the video below for Fox coverage.

This was the interview in which Ayers said things like:

"I'm as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist." - Bill Ayers, 2002

Seven days later, April 19, 2002, Obama was with Ayers at a discussion designed to advance an extreme liberal agenda.

"I'm very open about what I think and nobody here is surprised about what I think." - Bill Ayers


"There is a struggle over various religious fundamentalism, Jihad being the most visible, but the religious fundamentalism of the Christians and the Jews is equally troubling." - Bill Ayers

This interview--among many, many other things--shows how thin Obama's contention was that Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood" and then that he didn't know about Ayers radial terrorist past, and then that he thought Ayers was "rehabilitated."

Why would someone who wants to lead the United States associate with a terrorist who hates America and bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, several police stations and other buildings, and firebombed a private home?

Why would a man who wants to lead our country write a foreword to a book written by this terrorist?

Why would anyone vote for someone who would associate with such anti-American trash?


Children's Rights versus Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty

by John Walker
Libertarians for Life
Copyright 1991


You may have read reviews of Murray Rothbard's book The Ethics of Liberty (Humanities Press, 1982). Unfortunately, most of the reviews failed to cover (or barely touched upon) how he handles the questions of abortion and children's rights. And it is on these issues that Dr. Rothbard shows why so many find him exciting and why others find his arguments outside economics to be less than impressive.

First, let it be noted that Dr. Rothbard can be very impressive in attacking the injustice of government's dealings with the young. He makes excellent points in his critique of current policies. It is good -- and essential -- to point out, for instance, that minors guilty of crimes tend to be given shorter sentences than those deemed "in need of supervision". And while those charged with crimes have finally been granted procedural rights, those who need "supervision" are deemed to have no right of redress against the state at all. It all boils down to classic anti-libertarianism: aggression is less of a crime than independence. And Dr. Rothbard is to be credited for reporting the facts.

But if he should be praised for his critique of government, Dr. Rothbard deserves considerably less credit for his own efforts to justify abortion and abandonment. Even among some libertarian "pro-choicers", his arguments have frequently produced little more than acute discomfort bordering on embarrassment. Yet at the same time, others have given his views instant acceptance. The paradox deserves more attention than it has received.

Dr. Rothbard holds that parents have the right to abandon their children at any time, regardless of the consequences. So also, he insists that abortion is a right. The difference between Dr. Rothbard and some other "pro-choicers" is that he is quite willing to concede (if only for the purpose of discussion) that the preborn are persons. He makes it quite clear that his arguments apply equally well to the preborn, infants, and all children.

The chain of reasons by which Dr. Rothbard arrives at his conclusions is relatively simple. We are necessarily self-owners. Our will is absolutely inalienable. You could not sell yourself into slavery, for instance, because being a slave would entail the surrender of your will. So also even in more customary contract situations, you can not agree to do something in the future because what if you changed your mind and didn't want to do it any longer? To be compelled to perform the service would be an alienation of your will -- and, as such, an intolerable injustice. So parents have the right to abandon children because we all have the right to abandon anything that requires our continued labor.

Dr. Rothbard agrees that we can owe money or property. Such things can be alienated from us. But labor, services, the exercise of will, no. Dr. Rothbard's position on abandonment, then is an unavoidable conclusion of his most fundamental premises. Abortion is merely a case of abandonment: "eviction." If the child's death results, that is immaterial.

Regrettably, Dr. Rothbard does not appear to be willing to subject his fundamental premises to much examination. Nor, for that matter, is he willing to ask whether his theoretical justification of abortion as "eviction" has any relationship to abortions as they take place in the real world. In the real world, after all, most abortions are not simple removals where the child dies for lack of sustenance. They are usually very unambiguous acts of destruction. Yet Dr. Rothbard proposes to use the same term to cover two radically different events. It is far more comfortable and popular to provide a window-dressing justification and ignore the question of inconvenient little facts in the real world.

It may be easy, then, to dismiss Dr. Rothbard's "evictionist" position on abortion as hypocrisy. But there are many libertarians who, when discussing abortions as they actually take place, are willing to recognize them as acts of outright homicide. At the same time, though, they will insist that genuine evictions are fully the right of parents -- even if the child dies as a result. That position is certainly preferable to word games that dodge the facts. And it is certainly preferable to the "right to a dead fetus" so vigorously advanced by some -- including some libertarians.

Yet while there are worse alternatives, pro-lifers must also counter abandonment and simple eviction. And for many who hold that position, Rothbard's notion of "self-ownership" has become an article of faith.

The strength of self-ownership lies in the strength of the word "own". It makes clear that I am mine -- I am not the property of anyone else nor is my body. The weakness of "self-ownership" is that it doesn't really make any sense when taken literally.

If I own something, then I can give it away, I can sell it. That's part of what ownership means. Yet can I give myself away so I don't have my self any longer? Hardly. Indeed, Dr. Rothbard is quite insistent that self- ownership is "necessary". That is, that it is utterly impossible to alienate our selves from ourselves.

But if I can not rightfully give something away, transfer its ownership, then I don't own it. (At least I'm not the sole owner.)

Dr. Rothbard's way out of this dilemma (which he never seems to confront openly) is to assume that if you don't own yourself, then the only alternative is that it must be at least possible for someone else to own you. That's impossible, though. So you must own yourself. His assumption dodges the fundamental question, however: are persons the sort of thing that can be owned? By anyone? Are they accessible to becoming property? Are you your property or are you just you?

The answer of traditional philosophy (which elsewhere Dr. Rothbard can discuss very well) is that it is sheer nonsense to apply the notion of "property" to persons. "Ownership" doesn't apply to persons -- it presupposes them.

He may be reluctant to take such a stand, however, because all the foregoing to the contrary notwithstanding, he insists there are persons who can be owned. They're children.

"A new-born baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense. Therefore, either the mother or some other party may be the baby's owner...." He does state, though that this "parental ownership is not absolute but of a 'trustee' or guardianship kind"; it's limited in time and in kind, so that parents couldn't own their children forever, and couldn't murder or torture them. But trusteeship isn't ownership and guardianship isn't ownership in any sense of the word. How this notion of "ownership" squares with the words we have to use in ordinary conversation, Dr. Rothbard does not address.

Dr. Rothbard, then will have to distort the notion of either "self" or of "ownership" in order to glue them together.

But he is absolutely correct in one element that he regards as crucial: that we can not alienate our wills, our selves. Even if we sell ourselves into slavery and do all our master asks, we do it because we will it. We are stuck with being choosing beings; and ultimately only death can free us from that state. (That, in fact, is why the idea of ownership can't apply to persons.)

But the fact that we can not alienate our selves does not mean that we cannot "alienate" our individual decisions. We do it every day. We do things we don't want to, whether we have obligations to do so or not. Dr. Rothbard seems not to confront this fact of life. Mainly he contents himself with denying that we can ever have any enforceable obligations to do so when it comes to providing labor.

The net result is that he denies, in effect, obligation itself. According to Dr. Rothbard, I "alienate" myself by performing labor when I don't want to; I also "alienate myself when I don't labor when I want to, as with a no-compete contract. Then why don't I "alienate" myself when I expend any energy in repaying a loan I don't want to repay? Or when I don't commit aggression when I want to? My relationship to you may be different in these cases, but how is my relationship to myself any different? That's another question, unfortunately, that does not get addressed in The Ethics of Liberty.

If Dr. Rothbard does not discuss points that might lead him to a wholesale repudiation of obligation, and therefore rights, others are not so reticent. We have probably all come across libertarians for whom any restraint on their wills is intolerable. But the only real restraint on our wills is obligation -- the recognition of the rights of others. (We always have the possibility of escaping practical restraints on our will, such as jails or hostility. Whereas if rights and obligations exist, they sit there as a rebuke regardless of whether we get away with the aggression or not. To some minds, that is more of an insult than mere punishment.)

In The Ethics of Liberty, Dr. Rothbard appears to wish to undermine the notion of obligation while still retaining the language of rights. Just as he wishes to justify acts of killing by the language of eviction. It remains to be seen whether this is deliberate, or inadvertent, or whether he just hasn't gotten around to following his ideas out to all their implications and judging those implications against reality.

For the moment, his ambiguity may be a sure way to retain his status as establishment libertarianism's chief guru. Sooner or later, though, both he and his acolytes may have to confront the implications of their own ideas. Then they will have to ask which they value more: doing whatever they will, or recognizing rights.

Reprinted by permission of Libertarians for Life.


Early Voting a Threat to Fair Elections


The United States Constitution is explicit about few things pertaining to elections, leaving to individual States the right to determine method and manner of elections. For federal offices, however, constitutional guidelines must be followed, such as eligibility, terms of office, etc.

The one thing that the Constitution has been explicit about, and for good reason, is a uniform day for electing members of Congress and the President. This is stated in Article II, Section 1, “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

The U.S. Code is more specific:


TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT

CHAPTER 1--PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES

Sec. 1. Time of appointing electors

The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in
each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in
every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice
President.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 672.)
3 U.S.C.§ 1


Congress re-iterated the point in 1848 in Acts of the Twenty-Eighth Congress, Statute II, Chapter 1. “An act to establish a uniform time for holding elections…”

More recently, following the near constitutional crisis of the 2000 election, Congress examined and restated the Constitutional provisions of federal elections and summarized their findings in a the “Congressional Authority to Standardize National Election Procedures” Again, the principle of a national day for elections was upheld.

While the principle of a single national uniform day for federal elections has been repeatedly prescribed in government documents, in practice states have been left to allow voting pretty much as they wish. Thus, we have the situation where there is now a concerted effort get people to vote early, often at the same time that they register. CNSNews has a piece today, “Celebrities Urge Black Americans to Vote Early,” in order “to avoid voter suppression tactics and confusion at the polls [yeah, right].”

A September 22nd article in USA Today reported that 34 states will allow early voting this election with some accepting ballots almost six weeks before election day.
Experts such as Paul Gronke of the Early Voting Information Center predict nearly a third of the electorate will vote early this year, up from 15% in 2000 and 20% in 2004. In closely contested Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, about half the voters are expected to cast ballots before Election Day. Florida could be 40%.
[…]
What used to be a 72-hour get-out-the-vote effort has become "a 720-hour program," says Rich Beeson, the Republican National Committee's political director.
With a uniform voting day, polls could be monitored closely and fraud was much less likely to occur (except in Chicago, of course). Spread the process out over four to six weeks with as much as 50% of voters casting ballots well before election day and the opportunities for electoral mischief abound. It should come as no surprise then that lefty Hollywood types are busy encouraging early voting as are the folks at ACORN and virtually every Democrat Secretary of State and Election Board.

Obama is leaving nothing to chance. Despite commanding leads in the polls he and his campaign act as though they teeter on a razor-thin margin. Every technique, legal and otherwise, is being employed to guarantee a Democrat victory in November. It seems that the fix is in and only a record turnout of Republicans and conservatives has any chance of preventing Obama from seizing the wheel of the Republic.


 
Clicky Web Analytics