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?



Saturday, November 01, 2008

The Marxist Shuffle: Obama's Incredible Shrinking Tax Cut

Don'tcha just love the Marxist Shuffle? Isn't it a cool dance? As the thresh hold of "evil rich" drops, your taxes go up.

How low do you think the thresh hold will be if Obama gets to be president? $75,000? $50,000? $30,000?

Oh heck, let's just raise everyone's taxes so everyone can be patriotic, spread the wealth, be unselfish, and help build a glorious People's Republic of Obama.

Dr. James Dobson Endorses Joel Dykstra for U.S. Senate

Dear Friends:

I seldom make political endorsements, but it is with a sense of great urgency that I announce my support for Joel Dykstra in his bid to become South Dakota's next U.S. Senator. it is imperative that he win this contest!

Mr. Dykstra's opponent, Senator Tim Johnson, is opposed to many of the values that you and I hold dear, beginning with the sanctity of life. Sen. Johnson is unapologetically pro-abortion and has consistently received very low scores from the National Right to Life Committee for his votes against restricting this barbaric practice. In fact, he has voted in favor of taxpayer funding for abortion, and has also voted to allow abortions to be performed on U.S. military bases overseas.

There are other major concerns, as well. Sen. Johnson voted twice to block the federal Marriage Protection Amendment, which would protect traditional marriage from attacks by gay activists.

In stark contrast to Sen. Johnson, Joel Dykstra has a proven track record of leadership on pro-family, pro-life issues in the South Dakota State Legislature. I believe he would be a strong voice for those values in the U.S. Senate, as well. His willingness to take on a sitting U.S. Senator is itself a testament to his tremendous courage and resolve. His defeat of Tim Johnson on Electing Day would send a strong signal to the political and cultural elite that South Dakotans do not want to see our nation drift further to the left.

Please know that I am sending this letter as a private individual, and not as a representative of the organizations I lead. That being said, I want to urge you, once again, to cast your vote on November 4th for Joel Dykstra for the United States Senate.


James C. Dobson, Ph.D.

More Points on SDSMA Position on Initiated Measure 11

Pastor Steve has some important additional points at Voices Carry in addition to what I stated earlier this morinng about the South Dakota State Medical Association postion on Initiated Measure 11.

I'd encourage you to read those points because the cover aspects of this issue not covered in my post, but they are very relevant and should be considered when deciding how to vote on IM 11.

Misuse of SDSMA Statement by Pro-Abortion Campaign

I've talked to several doctors over the last few days in Rapid City and Sioux Falls who are dissatisfied with the South Dakota State Medical Association's statement concerning Initiated Measure 11, and with the misuse of that statement by the pro-abortion (and Orwellian-named) South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families.

What I am told by some of the doctors who are members of the SDSMA is that when the 60-member Council of Physicians board of the SDSMA met on March 20, 2008 it was decided that the SDSMA would take no position at all on IM 11.

However, I am told that in September, at the insistence of Dr. Marvin Buehner of Rapid City, several members of the Council of Physicians met again to revisit the issue. Dr. Buehner is said to have taken charge of that meeting and pushed for a statement against IM 11; my sources tell me that not all members of the Council were present at that meeting. While at least one member of the council strongly objected to this action, the opposition was voted down.

The full extent of the SDSMA statement is as follows:

At its September 17, 2008, meeting, the governing Council of the South Dakota State Medical Association reaffirmed its previous position of support for American Medical Association policy that the issue of support of or opposition to abortion is a matter for individuals to decide, based on personal values or beliefs. Additionally, the Council established a position that the SDSMA opposes Initiated Measure 11 solely based on interference by the government in medical practice and restrictions on physician-patient communications.

One of the key objections many physicians have with this statement is the fact that there essentially is no doctor-patient relationship in elective abortion situations, and physician-patient communications are minimal at best.

When this statement was released from the SDSMA, the pro-abortion effort quickly seized on it and used it as a centerpiece of their campaign to convince the voters of South Dakota to vote against IM 11.

Hundreds of doctors across South Dakota were outraged at this misrepresentation of their individual opinion of the measure, and the misrepresentation of the statement in general.

These doctors contacted the leaders of the SDSMA and soon the SDSMA sent written notice to the Campaign for Healthy families to cease and desist using the SDSMA statement in their advertising and to remove the Association logo from their campaign website.

A press release was prepared by the SDSMA and held but not released, in the event the Campaign for Healthy Families failed to comply.

The text of that embargoed press release is as followed, with a scan below the text:

October 23, 2008

South Dakota State Medical Association Media Advisory

The South Dakota State Medical Association (SDSMA) is concerned that various organizations, commercials and media have misrepresented the SDSMA’s position on Initiated Measure 11 and continue to do so in an effort to further their own interests.

The SDSMA’s official position statement reads as follows: “At its September 17, 2008, meeting, the governing Council of the South Dakota State Medical Association reaffirmed its previous position of support for American Medical Association policy that the issue of support of or opposition to abortion is a matter for individuals to decide, based on personal values or beliefs. Additionally, the Council established a position that the SDSMA opposes Initiated Measure 11 solely based on interference by the government in medical practice and restrictions on physician-patient communications.”

To prevent further misinterpretation and misunderstanding, the SDSMA requests that its position statement be used in its entirety when communicating to the public.

Further, the SDSMA has formally notified the Campaign for Healthy Families to discontinue referencing the SDSMA in its campaign activities to include public advertising.

For more information, please contact:
Andrew Johnson
SDSMA Communications Director

Additionally, a letter went out from Dr. Cynthia Weaver, President of the SDSMA to hundreds of concerned members of the SDSMA to assure them that their concerns were being addressed and that the Campaign for Healthy Families had been instructed to cease and desist using their statement in any of their campaign communications, and to remove the SDSMA logo from their website.

This is part of what Dr. Weaver's letter told SDSMA members (a scan of the entire letter follows this text):

SDSMA continues its position of neutrality on the issue of abortion and will not attempt to influence the personal views of its physician members regarding abortion procedures- it is a personal matter. The SDSMA has physician members who are pro-choice and who are pro-life, and convictions are equally passionate in both cases.

SDSMA deplores efforts of partisans in the IM 11 campaign, and in some cases the media, to misrepresent its position in order to advance their own agendas. We have requested that any use of the Association's position be confined to the language of the position statement. Any departure simply serves to misrepresent a carefully crafted and nuanced viewpoint. To this end, the SDSMA has formally insisted that the Campaign for Healthy Families withdraw its present advertising and conform it to the four corners of this Association's position statement.

I am told that the Campaign for Healthy Families did not immediately comply, and had to be contacted again by telephone with the demand to cease and desist repeated. The group eventually stopped using the SDSMA statement in their television ads and eventually removed.

However, late last week or early this week, I received another campaign mailer from the Campaign for Healthy Families which said, "The South Dakota Medical Association, which represents hundreds of doctors throughout South Dakota, opposes Measure 11."

I have also received a couple of reports this afternoon from people in eastern and north-central South Dakota who were called today by the Campaign for Healthy Families and were told the SDSMA is opposing IM 11.

In addition to the continued drumbeat on the SDSMA statement, the pro-abortion campaign has found a “catchy tune” in their theme of “keep government out of family decisions.” Only this doesn’t pass the smell test, coming from liberals who otherwise think government is far smarter than you are, and should be running every aspect of your life.

Besides, government already interjected itself into this issue back in 1973 when a few unelected judges seized power from the states and the people and forced legal abortion on the entire country. These oligarchs in black robes know better than you what’s right, don’t they?

While this “government interference” theme doesn’t pass the smell test, it does indeed pass the “hypocrisy” test.

My sources within the SDSMA tell me that while it is uncertain what can be accomplished with the election only two business days away, the SDSMA is examining the possibility of litigation on Monday morning, November 3.

The pro-abortion campaign ("Campaign for UnHealthy Families" as they are known in pro-life circles) has engaged in one deception after another this election season.

They campaigned against Referred Law 6 in 2006 on the sole basis that it lacked exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother, and their campaign succeeded.

Now that the voters of South Dakota have a measure to consider which does contain those exceptions, the pro-abortion lobby has been forced to scramble for anything they can use to scare the voters into opposing the measure.

We have been told by people intent on using abortion for birth control that we must keep abortion legal to treat rare fetal anomalies that affect less than 1 percent of pregnancies, and often have non-abortive treatments. How ironic that those intent on keeping the abortion of unborn children would hold up ill unborn children as a justification to keep abortion legal.

Then we heard that Sanford Health in Sioux Falls had come out against IM 11, but after they talked with the legal team at VoteYesForLife.com, they changed their position and stated that in almost every way IM 11 fits within their current standard procedures.

Now we hear that Campaign for UnHealthy Families workers here from out of state have registered to vote in our election, planning to go home to California and other states the day after the election--a violation of federal and South Dakota law.

And of course we have this fiasco with Dr. Buehner's ram-rodding of the SDSMA statement and it's continued misuse by the pro-abortion campaign.

Of course, there really is no reasonable justification to oppose this most reasonable of bills to end abortion as birth control. The pro-abortion campaign has little choice but to resort to wild and irrational arguments.

But they have no right to flaunt the law and misrepresent organizations like the SDSMA.

The Case Against Clueless Voting

I have long said that making an ignorant and uninformed vote is like waving a loaded gun around and pulling the trigger with your eyes closed.

Apparently I'm not alone in my appreciation for the solemn responsibility which comes with the right to vote.

John Stossel's latest column at Newsmax argues that "Clueless People Shouldn't Even Vote."

Indeed. They should do their fellow Americans a great public service and just stay home on Nov. 4 and eat Cheetos or keep watching The View. There are a number of regular commenters at Dakota Voice who fit that bill.

It can be absolutely shocking to come face-to-face with the amount of historical, governmental, legal, societal and practical ignorance out there. And we're not just talking about a difference of opinion...


Obama's vision is far from that of Founding Fathers


Pushing back on accusations from John McCain that he's a socialist, Barack Obama said, "I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret Communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

Once again, we get the Obama oratorical fog. The problem isn't what he does with his toys or sandwich, it's what he sees as legitimate to do, under authority of government, with mine and yours.

"(McCain) has called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class."

Obama's plans go much further than using the tax code to redistribute wealth.

He's got about $700 billion in so-called refundable tax credits in mind, direct money transfers to individuals, to finance his social engineering ideas in education, child care, and environmental policy.

We're talking about a trillion dollars in new government spending to pay for his government-directed schemes to deal with just about every aspect of our lives.

Don Boudreaux, chairman of George Mason University's economics department, says it's more accurate to call Obamanomics "Socialism-lite", rather than outright Socialism, because we're not talking about overt government ownership of our manufacturing and financial entities.

But the line of distinction is fine, and the slope to overt and blatant socialism, as Boudreaux points out, is pretty slippery.

The real question is "So what?" Okay, so our country becomes more socialized and, by definition, less free. What difference does it make? After all, voters will have transmitted power to Obama in open and free elections. Isn't that what it's all about?

Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be."

Obama will have succeeded in selling a vision of America that has little to do with the vision of its founding because so many Americans are now detached from and uninformed by the documents that defined the country -- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bible.

If we randomly surveyed voters and asked, "How is the role of government defined in the Declaration of Independence?" how many could answer the question?

How many could answer that the Declaration talks about our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and, "That to secure these rights governments are instituted among Men..."?

Government's job, according to the founders, is to protect individual liberty and guard against intrusions on our life and property -- the very wholesale intrusions that Barack Obama will begin in earnest once he is empowered by American voters.

There is no freedom without law and courts. And what is law for Obama?

He'll appoint judges who have "the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

The Bible tells us, regarding courts and justice, "Do not glorify a destitute person in his grievance."

Our biblical tradition, which is clear that we should love our neighbor and give charity, is also clear that courtrooms are the place to objectively apply law and not for politics.

History is filled with the dismal lessons of nations where law was turned into molding clay and citizens who abdicated personal responsibility for their lives to messianic sounding demagogues. But when we stop reading, thinking, and taking seriously the eternal truths of tradition, the only thing left is to re-learn through experience what history has already taught.

Apparently this is where much of America stands today.

And the rest?

Recall the words of Samuel Adams. "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate and tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

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 31, 2008

SDSMA Requests to be Removed from Pro- Abortion Calls

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota, October 31 /Christian Newswire/ -- The South Dakota State Medical Association (STOMA) issued a statement late today demanding that the Campaign for "Healthy Families" (CHF) stop using the SDSMA name in recorded calls being distributed throughout South Dakota this afternoon. VoteYesForLife.com learned this evening that the SDSMA has requested that the CHF admonish their callers from mentioning SDSMA.

Citizens of South Dakota should be on guard for misinformation from the pro-abortion industry over the next few days.

Dykstra to Speak to Young Republicans in Sioux Falls

From today's mailbag:

Sioux Falls, SD – Republican U.S. Senate Candidate Joel Dykstra will speak at a Sioux Falls rally for College and Teenage Republicans on Saturday, November 1 at 2:00 p.m. at the Minnehaha County Republican Headquarters, 2127 S. Minnesota Avenue, Suite 201.

“This election is about the future,” Dykstra said. “The decisions we make in Washington over the next six years will determine the kind of America our young people inherit. What better way to spend the final days of this campaign than by talking directly to our future leaders and involving them in the democratic process.”

The rally is expected to draw young Republicans from across the state of South Dakota.

Obama the Thief and Envy-Monger Says Property Rights are Selfishness

Like a good Soviet, er, Marxist, er, socialist, er, Democrat, Barack Obama is trying to put a positive spin on his Marxist plans to spread your wealth around to those who haven't earned it.

From ABC News:

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

I'd like to know when Barack Obama made a virtue out of envy and theft.

You see, when you take someones money from them without their consent, that's theft. It doesn't matter if you give it to someone else; it's still theft.

Want to try it? Go into your neighbor's house without asking, take his TV set or grab his wallet and go give it to another neighbor. See if he's okay with that. In fact, see if the police are okay with it.

It's called legal plunder, folks.

Besides, Americans are the most giving people in the world--and conservative Americans are the most giving of all Americans.

The Index of Global Philanthropy finds that in 2006, private philanthropy accounted for $11 billion more than the U.S. government gave in foreign charitable aid. Great Britain, the next most generous, gave less than 10 time less than the U.S.

Americans are at least as generous here at home, giving to everything from homeless centers to soup kitchens to pregnancy centers and so on. Well, that is, most Americans are generous.

Ironically, socialists like Barack Obama are typically the least generous.

ABC reported that the Obamas are charity cheapskates:

The Obamas' donations to all recipients totaled $2,350 in 2000, $1,470 in 2001, $1,050 in 2002, $3,400 in 2003, and $2,500 in 2004. They also paid federal taxes totaling $311,044 during the same period on their $1.2 million of income."

So is his running mate Joe Biden. The Hill reported
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate, has donated a total of $3,690 since 1998 despite his higher Senate salary, according to an analysis posted by National Review.

Conservatives, meanwhile, are consistently shown to be more charitable and less selfish.

Liberals are generous alright: generous with your money, seldom with their own.

Socialism and wealth redistribution didn't cut it for the Founders and their understanding that limited government was necessary to maintain freedom, property rights and a good work ethic:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

- We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett

This socialist is just trying to cover his tracks since Joe the Plumber exposed him for the Marxist he is.

Happy Halloween

Watch out for the tin man if you're out trick-or-treating tonight.

Word has it he'll steal your candy and give it to someone else to get that other person to vote for him.

While he pretends, he really has no heart. His "compassion" is all for himself and his desire to ascend to the position of Wizard.

Help Dorothy click her heels together next Tuesday to get herself and Scarecrow to the White House.

Pro-Homosexual Candidate Scurries for Cover in Dist. 33

The Rapid City Journal is upset that an issue postcard went out about Dennis Finch, Democrat candidate for District 33 senate.

The pink postcard from a group from Hermosa called Family Matters features a pic of two homosexual men about to kiss and asks: "Does Democrat Candidate Dennis Finch support this?

Why, you might ask, would the Family Matters group believe Finch would support homosexual behavior? Because the pro-homosexual group "Equality South Dakota" or EqSD endorsed him and several other pro-homosexual candidates back in July.

In order to receive an endorsement and/or campaign contributions from EqSD, candidates had to fill out a survey from EqSD. And I can't imagine this pro-homosexual group would give an endorsement and/or financial contributions if they didn't like the answers they received.

Here are the questions EqSD asked on their survey:

1. Employment Discrimination: In South Dakota, it is legal to fire or refuse to hire someone just because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual, or transgender. More than 430 of the Fortune 500 companies have already adopted inclusive antidiscrimination policies and 74% of Americans support legislation that would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity by state and local governments. In concept, would you support such a bill?

2. Safe Schools
Studies show that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students face disproportionate levels of violence, harassment, and discrimination in public schools. A recent survey found that when these students reported harassment to school officials, it went unaddressed 73% of the time. Equality SD believes the legislature must send a clear message to school officials that every student has a right to a safe learning environment, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, religion or disability. In concept would you support legislation requiring school systems to adopt inclusive harassment and discrimination policies?

3. Relationship Recognition
Because same sex couples can legally be denied access to their partners in health care settings, such as hospital emergency room events, gays and lesbians have lost partners without entry to their deathbed or the ability to comfort their loved in their last hour. In concept, would you support legislation granting hospital visitation rights and similar protections that recognize gay relationships.

In case you're not familiar with how homosexual activists operate, they try to find causes they believe can generate sympathy, then craft the issue in such a way that no reasonable (and ignorant) person could oppose it.

After all, who could oppose giving a guy a job? Who could oppose efforts to keep kids from being beaten up? Who could oppose somebody visiting someone they care about in the hospital?

The only thing is, these are merely vehicles to advance their agenda of homosexual legitimization.

Unless a homosexual is flaunting their sexual behavior openly, an employer probably isn't going to even know they're a homosexual. Many business owners these days wouldn't care anyway. And for those employers who try to run a Christian business that is part of the testimony of their faith, they should not be forced to compromise their testimony with an employee who does openly thumb their nose at their deeply held religious values.

As for safe schools, how about school officials protect every student from bullying? If they aren't, they should be. And if they are, why do homosexuals need special protection? The "safe schools" initiative is nothing but a vehicle to force legitimization and acceptance of homosexuality onto young, impressionable minds.

And as for visitation rights, homosexuals can take care of this with a power of attorney if they'd like. But their relationship has done nothing positive for society to merit the special considerations given to legitimate marital and family relationships.

Marriages produce children, the next generation to continue a society; homosexual couples can never produce children, even if all their reproductive organs are working correctly.

Married families also provide another valuable service to society: a safe, stable and healthy environment in which to nurture and raise children. Homosexuals have higher rates of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse and suicide. Such an unhealthy and unstable environment is no place to situate a child, even by adoption. Homosexuals couples also have much higher rates of domestic violence--another situation you wouldn't want to drop a child into. Homosexuals are also much more promiscuous than heterosexuals; even those who claim to be "monogamous" in reality often involve outside sexual partners. And why would we want to teach a child from his home environment that one sex or the other is unnecessary or undesirable?

No, unlike married couples, homosexual couples provide no legitimate benefit to society. There is no logical reason to give homosexual behavior or homosexual relationships any special recognition or consideration.

I have to wonder why Finch is so upset over this, though. (1) It is an established fact that EqSD endorsed him; (2) as I said above, I can't imagine they would endorse him without a solid reason to believe he supports their agenda, and (3) Finch did not deny supporting EqSD, or the behavior exhibited on the mailer.

Finch did say in the article that he "does not support either of the policy goals alleged in the mailing." Well, "either" implies two objects, but there were three goals stated on the mailer, and one of those was specifically included in the survey EqSD sent out.

Does he really expect us to believe EqSD would endorse him if he didn't support at least part of their agenda?

If Finch didn't want people to know he supports the homosexual agenda, maybe he shouldn't have indicated he did with the EqSD survey.

A couple of the pro-homosexual blogs in South Dakota have indicated they are upset by the mailer. If EqSD didn't want people to know Finch supports the homosexual agenda, maybe they shouldn't have publicly endorsed him.

What are they so ashamed of? If they want to push acceptance of homosexual behavior on our society, force Christian businesses to hire people who openly oppose their values, push pro-homosexual indoctrination on our schools, and undermine marriage and the family, do they expect to be left alone to undermine our culture unhindered and in secret?

Sorry, some of us aren't willing to bare our necks and and allow homosexual activists to butcher the family and normal human sexuality. We're not going to let them tear to shreds the moral fabric of our society.

Homosexual activists like to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to have their sexual practices celebrated while undermining marriage and family, and if you say anything in opposition to their assault, then you're a "hater," a "homophobe" and "mean spirited."

Sorry, some of us aren't stupid enough to fall for that intimidation ploy, either.

Shouldn't the voters of District 33 know what they're supporting when they vote for a candidate? If Finch supports two men kissing, then voters are supporting the same thing if they vote for him.

The folks at Family Matters have done a public service. Finch didn't help the voters of District 33 get informed; he ignored the South Dakota Family Policy Council voter guide that most of his fellow Dist. 33 candidates responded to (click image to enlarge).

The voter guide specifically asked two questions about the homosexual agenda:

8. Support extending to homosexual couples the legal benefits, rights,and privileges that the state currently provides to married couples?

9. Support legislation that prohibits adoption of children to homosexual parents?

It seems that while Finch could find time to respond to a survey from a pro-homosexual group, he couldn't find time to respond to a pro-family group concerned about things like marriage, family, children, the life of unborn children, Second Amendment rights, transparency in government, sex ed and public education.

His opponent, Dennis Schmidt, didn't seem to have anything to hide; Schmidt answered every question.

Shouldn't candidates running for office to represent the people of their district be up-front about what they support and what they are likely to support if they are elected?

It sounds to me from Finch's scurrying and angst over this post card that he's worried people might find out what he really supports.

A New Look at Prairie Fire, the Bill Ayers Terrorist Manifesto

Fox News is now reporting on domestic terrorist Bill Ayers' terrorist manifesto Prairie Fire.

Ayers is the Weather Underground terrorist who bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, several police stations and court houses and many other locations.

He also hired Barack Obama to work on the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago, an organization Ayers helped create. They also worked on the board of the Woods Fund together.

Ayers also held a meet-and-greet in his home for Obama to help launch Obama's political career for the Illinois senate many years ago.

Last week, and investigative website called Zombietime found a copy of Prairie Fire, the book Ayers and his fellow Weathermen wrote during their terrorist years, and posted large scans of the text on his website.

Now Fox News is reporting on the book (see below). While the book contains an incredible amount of controversial information, Fox centers in on the dedication page which lists Sirhan Sirhan, Robert F. Kennedy's assassin.

Now, some people on the Left may not have a problem with Ayers anti-American rantings and terrorist bombings against our country, but Bobby Kennedy has for decades been a beloved icon of all Americans--especially on the Left. Certainly this will offend even liberals.

But this book contains terrorist, Marxist, anti-American writings that should make the blood of any red-blooded American boil.

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.

The book clearly states the intentions of Ayers and his Marxists:
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.

The book also has a list of some of the places Ayers and his terrorist organization bombed around America:
- 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

Here is how Ayers and his fellow Weathermen terrorist described the turmoil and unrest of the 1960s, what they planned to do in it and how they planned to exploit it:
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.

Does their language sound anything at all like the kind of class-envy garbage you've been hearing out of the Left for some time now:
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

You hear this kind of drivel constantly from Democrats, only cleaned up just a little better.

Ayers and his ilk love nothing more than to see America humiliated, on the ropes and defeated:
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.

There is more, far more, in Prairie Fire.

Stop and consider for a moment that Barack Obama allowed this America-hating terrorist help launch his political career in his living room. That Barack Obama worked with this man on the board of the Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund. That they sat together on panels like the one over juvenile justice.

Barack Obama has a clear pattern of associating with people who despite the United States.

How can we possibly consider electing someone with this wretched judgment (and possibly questionable sympathies) to the presidency?

"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."

Rashid Khalidi, the PLO Spokesman Obama Praised, Runs from Cameras

Why do all of Barack Obama's terrorist friends run when the cameras come around?

They seem like cockroaches: shine a light on them and they scurry for cover. They seem to like darkness where their deeds go unidentified by most people.

Fox News tried to interview Rashid Khalidi (see video below), the Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman whom Barack Obama praised at a dinner.

The Los Angeles Times has a video of this dinner, but won't release it.

We know from the LA Times story on this event that Obama had good words for the spokesman of the terrorist PLO organization. But if they are stonewalling on releasing the tape, what else--possibly even more damning--would it tell us about the man who wants to lead America?

You might recall that when Fox News tried to interview the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, with whom Obama has worked for the past 13 years, he wouldn't talk to the reporter at all.

ABC also tried to talk to the Weather Underground bomber, but no luck either.

Do Obama's terrorist associates realize that if they want their guy to get in the White House, they have to keep their mouths shut for a few more days?

How can we possibly be seriously considering electing a man like Barack Obama, with his sympathies for America's enemies, and his shady associations with people who hate America?

The Sorry State of Free Health Care

Socialism just doesn't work, folks. The longer it's tried, the more it costs and the less it works.

The National Center for Policy Analysis looks at the pathetic wait times in countries like Canada and Britain where they have socialized medicine and finds that while our medical system in the United States leaves a lot to be desired, we're doing pretty well compared to the socialists:

- The Fraser Institute found that Canada's median waiting times from a patient's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist, depending on the procedure, averages from 5 to 40 weeks; the wait for diagnostics, such as MRI or CT, ranges between 4 and 28 weeks.

- In England, 750,000 are awaiting hospital admission, and the National Health Services hopes to achieve an 18-week maximum wait from general practitioner to treatment, including all diagnostic tests, by the end of 2008.

- In both countries, many patients with diseases that are curable at the time of diagnosis become incurable by the time of treatment or patients become too weak for the surgical procedure.

The article also states that 1 out of 3 Canadian doctors sends patients to the States for treatment each year. Why? Their patients might be dead before they got treated in the worker's paradise of Canada.

I lived under the British National Health Service for three years. This "free" health care creates a crippling tax burden for British citizens, and they get lousy service for all their sacrifice.

Once when I had food poisoning, I sat in the waiting room of a British hospital for about 2 hours vomiting in a garbage can (after having spent the two hours before that also throwing up) until a doctor finally saw me. By then my stomach was empty (and I think I'd evacuated several pounds of stomach tissue as well).

The medical care I received? The doctor said, "Yeah, mate, looks like you had some kind of food poisoning, but since you've got it all out of your system now, just go home and take it easy."

Wow. Isn't government health care great?

Please, Lord; don't allow liberals to impose "free" health care on the American people!

Newsbusted Conservative Comedy 10/31/2008

Topics in today's show: --Barack Obama confirmed as one-time member of socialist party --Nancy Pelosi says tax rebates not likely --North Korea bans cellphones --Will Obama appoint Oprah Winfrey an ambassador? --Woman goes to jail rather than pay fast food bill 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

What an Abortion Survivor Thinks About Abortion

Gianna Jessen survived an abortion attempt by her mother and is now a grown woman.

She testifies to the truth, the cold hard reality that abortion ends the life of a human being.

Barack Obama fought hard as an Illinois senator to preserve infanticide. Is it right to leave babies who survived an abortion attempt alone in a broom closet until they die? Barack Obama thought so.

Whether the death is quick or whether it's slow, it's the death of a human being, all the same. Consider this when you consider South Dakota's Initiated Measure 11.

Abortion-survivor Gianna Jessen appeals to presidential candidate Barack Obama to support protection for babies who are born in the course of an abortion.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

al-Qaida Praying for Obama, Democrat Victory

We have yet another terrorist group endorsement of Barack Obama.

From Newsmax comes word that Abu Yahya al-Libi, one of the top al-Qaida commanders in Afghanistan, is praying that President Bush and the Republican Party will be "humiliated."

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.

When the enemy of your country opposes a particular party or policy approach, that should speak volumes to you, shouldn't it?

When the group that blew up nearly 3,000 of your fellow Americans in one day is hoping for a particular political party to be "humiliated," shouldn't that tell you as an American in what direction your vote would best be cast?

That is, if you're a red-white-and-blue American, right?

Joe the Plumber Punished for Blaspheming the Government-God

What happens when you blaspheme against the almighty government-god?

What happens when you show disrespect to the government-god's high priest the Obamessiah Barack Obama?

The prophet Big Brother comes down on you.

The Columbus Dispatch says Joe the Plumber received a very close and intrusive look from the government deity after he exposed the Obamessiah as the High Priest of the Government-God, and the Obamessiah's holy plan to "spread the wealth" among all his children.

It seems they not only looked into any connections Joe had with the child support system, but also

whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.

Jones-Kelley made the revelations in a letter to Ohio Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, who demanded answers on why state officials checked out Wurzelbacher.

I think it's pretty obvious why some government-worshippers in Ohio government did it: to discredit a blasphemer.

"See, he receives blessings from the Government-God, too! That makes it okay."

Or so they hoped to be able to claim.

If this is happening now, before the Obamessiah even gets a chance to occupy the Holy Headquarters of the Almighty Government-God, what will life be like if he does get elected?

What will life be like for blaspheming Americans who don't worship at the Holy Trough of Government Largess?

Make no mistake: there is a price to be paid.

But thanks, Joe the Plumber, for standing up to this false god.

Values Voters Urged to Get to the Polls

If you are a Bible-believing Christian, please, take 4 minutes out of your day to watch this video.

As this video shows, there is a tremendous amount at stake in the election next week.

While many Christians may not be too excited about the Republican presidential headliner, the alternative--Barack Obama--is frightening for sincere and patriotic Christians to contemplate.

There are also U.S. Senate and U.S. House races at stake.

There are legislative representatives and other state offices at stake.

In California, marriage and family are at stake with Proposition 8.

Here in South Dakota, the lives of over 700 unborn children per year are at stake with Initiated Measure 11.

The values and freedoms we have inherited as Americans today came to us on the back of the blood and sacrifice of previous generations.

Now it's our turn to protect them, preserve them, to pass on to the next generation.

If every Bible-believing Christian in America would get out to the polls on November 4 and vote the values they know God holds, our nation could be preserved...our nation could even be profoundly changed for the better...marriage hijackers in California could be subdued...and in South Dakota, the journey to save 700 innocent children each year could finally get underway.

American Christian: don't neglect your duty to be the "salt and light" this dark and corrupt world needs.

The four-minute video, produced by Value Voters USA, points out there are critical issues at stake this election, including the sanctity of human life. “If there are more than 60 million evangelical Christians in America, together we can protect the values this great nation was built upon,” the video says.

Latino Star Stumps for McCain

Our friend at Human Events has the following story today:

by Elisabeth Meinecke

McCain is reaching out to Hispanic voters through the helping hands of Eduardo Verastegui, a household name among Latinos for his roles on Spanish television and his time in the music group “Kairo.”

Though part of an industry that bleeds blue, the Mexican actor -- now in the U.S. -- studied both presidential candidates’ records, then contacted the McCain campaign and told them he wanted to get involved.

“Anything I can do to help,” Verastegui said he told the campaign. “I’m so grateful to this nation that opened this door to my dreams. I love this country. I want the best for this country.”
Verastegui’s message to his fellow Hispanics: John McCain defends the values most precious to our community -- pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-conservative judges who will uphold family values, and pro-immigration reform.

As part of this community which celebrates life, Verastegui talked about the important role a political candidate will play on the abortion issue.

“We are a pro-life community,” Verastegui said of Latinos. “We need to start a culture of life."

Read entire article.

What is the Difference in These Two Children?

What's the difference between these two children? A few weeks? A little development?

If you can kill a child moments before it's born--and you can--why not a day after it's born? Why not a month? Why not a year or two?

A child or a choice? To rational people, it's pretty obvious.

LA Times Too Busy to Release Tape of Obama Praising Terrorist Spokesman

From our friends at Americans for Limited Government.

Banned SNL Skit on Financial Crisis Now Online

You need to see the banned Saturday Night Live (SNL) skit on the subprime meltdown. It was taken off YouTube--it was probably WAY over the line of honesty and candor allowed by liberal YouTube--but someone managed to bring it back to the internet.

HT to my fellow Red County blogger Dr. Richard Swier for pointing out this truth-telling and funny video.

Go here to see this great video at Pat Dollard.

You'll seldom see this much truth and accuracy in a skit produced by a pop-culture entity.

Among the many truths illustrated in this, it also points out they utter hypocrisy of the "bipartisan" drivel spouted by the Democrats...all the while they are backstabbing and bashing President Bush, who has done more than anyone in decades to promote good relations between the parties.

Go watch it NOW.

Could Barack Obama Pass a Security Background Check?

Given all the shady characters (Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, et al) that Barack Obama has been associated with, the question has come up--understandably--of whether Obama could pass a security clearance background check like average Americans have to go through when working around sensitive national security information.

Fox News interviewed Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum, (see video below) who doesn't think Obama would pass. Pipes sees Obama's associations with terrorists, anti-Americans and other radicals as a serious obstacle to a security clearance.

Pipes tells of a person who was looking to get a clearance to work at the National Security Agency (NSA) who had a French girlfriend; no dice on the clearance.

I remember when I was in the Air Force and came back to the States after spending three years overseas. While on leave between my last duty station and my upcoming one, I went to Del Rio, Texas to visit a friend stationed at the Air Force Base there. While I was there we went over into Mexico a few times since Del Rio sits right on the border. We just did a little sight-seeing, partying and dating some Mexican gals.

When I got to my next duty station, coincidentally I was up for a regularly scheduled security clearance review. One of the questions they ask is whether you've been to any foreign countries recently. When I told them I'd done a little partying in Mexico, suddenly the bright lights came on and they got the bamboo shoots ready for my fingernails. They were eventually satisfied I wasn't a commie spy or drug runner, but they gave me the third degree for a while.

But Barack Obama has associations with multiple radical anti-Americans going back many years. Most of these people have made it clear that they have immeasurable and burning hatred for the United States and would throw the party of the century if it was destroyed.

Because Obama is elected, he gets a free pass around the security standards average Americans would be held do.

If Obama is elected president, he will have access to ALL of America's national security information. He will be entrusted with America's national security itself.

Imagine that: someone who probably couldn't pass an average security background check, in charge of America's national security!

"You look at someone like Senator Obama with his plethora of very strong associations with radicals, with subversives, with anti-Americans, it's inconceivable to me that he could get a standard security clearance to work for the U.S. government."

Can a Nation Corrupted Be Restored to Virtue?

American Minute from William J. Federer

John Adams was born OCTOBER 30, 1735. A Harvard graduate, he was admitted to the bar and married Abigail Smith in 1764.

In the Continental Congress, John Adams recommended Thomas Jefferson pen the Declaration and George Washington be Commander-in-Chief.

John Adams authored Massachusetts' 1780 Constitution and was U.S. Minister to France, signing the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War.

While U.S. Minister to Britain, John Adams helped ratify the Constitution by writing a three volume work: Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the United States.

John Adams was the first Vice-President, serving under George Washington, and in 1797 was elected the 2nd U.S. President.

He established the Library of Congress and the Department of Navy. His son, John Quincy, became 6th President.

In 1819, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson: "Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue?...And without virtue, there can be no political liberty."

John Adams continued: "Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?...I believe no effort in favour of virtue is lost."

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.

Sioux Falls City Council Members Endorse Dykstra

Sioux Falls, SD – Four Sioux Falls City Council members today endorsed Joel Dykstra for U.S. Senator. Councilors Pat Costello, Greg Jamison, De Knudson and Kermit Staggers all gave Dykstra the nod, saying his business and legislative experience, leadership and South Dakota values make him the best candidate to represent our State in Washington, D.C.

“Joel Dykstra brings innovative ideas to the table on important issues facing our state and nation,” said Councilor Greg Jamison. “As City Council members, we are particularly impressed with his grasp of economic development issues and his pro-business positions of lowering taxes and stimulating investment. Joel understands that while our economy is going through critical and troubled times, our Government must allow families and businesses to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. That will stimulate economic growth in Sioux Falls, in South Dakota and throughout America.”

In addition to his extensive experience in economic development, the Councilors also applaud Joel’s track record and innovation in the energy and agricultural sectors.

“Joel understands that some of the most critical issues facing our nation are also great opportunities for South Dakota to excel in energy and agricultural production,” Jamison said. “He will be a zealous advocate for our state in Washington, D.C. “

For further information, call City Councilors:
Pat Costello – 334.6942
Greg Jamison – 310-1930
De Knudson – 338.9431
Kermit Staggers – 376.4056

Surprise of the Day: Rapid City Journal Opposes Initiated Measure 11

I see the Rapid City Journal is opposed to Initiated Measure 11 which--with exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother and the life of the mother--would end 98.1% of abortions in South Dakota and finally put a stop to killing children using abortion as retroactive birth control.

We’re opposed to IM 11. We’re opposed to government intervention in a decision best left to the family.
In case it escaped the pro-abortion liberals at the Journal, government already intervened in this issue in 1973. The federal government decided the states and the people have no say in this issue--and that the children being killed have no say, either.

Frankly, the people would like their right to self-government back from the judicial oligarchs...just as I'm reasonably sure that, if asked, the children being killed would say they'd like to keep their lives.

Liberals whining about "government intervention." What rank hypocrisy!

If the killing of an unborn child for convenience sake is "a decision best left to the family," I wonder if child abuse, incest, giving alcohol to minors, and wife-beating are decisions best left to the family, too...

Future of Israel may be decided Nov. 4

Thomas Cahill, in The Gifts of the Jews, proffers a story of awakening and seminal change in civilization brought about by the customs and theology of the Hebrews, based upon the one God Yaweh. Cahill comments, with only slight exaggeration that "We can hardly get up in the morning or cross the street without being Jewish." So revolutionary was the linear, beginning (creation) and end (judgement) cosmology of the Jews that the world was changed in ways that allowed the progression of civilization into the present time. (Here is a short review of The Gift of the Jews.)

The influence and importance of the Jews remains just as important to the world today. Western civilization would suffer immeasurably were Israel to fall to the forces that seek her destruction. That is why those who oppose the West also want to drive the Jews “into the sea.” I believe that the fate of Israel is the eventual fate of western civilization.

The following, from “The American Thinker,” asks Americans to consider the fate of Israel when we go to the polls to vote.

October 29, 2008
Open Letter to Americans Who Love Israel
Kyle-Anne Shiver
Will Americans really elect a president at such a perilous time, who seems to be clueless about foreign affairs, especially with regard to Israel and the Middle East? Barack Obama has made so many conflicting statements on these all-important matters that it behooves every American to think -- and think hard again -- before casting our ballots.

When I read "The Diary of Ann Frank" in the 4th grade, I could not help but believe that the German people had to be either truly evil or truly stupid to have allowed Adolf Hitler to obtain such complete power over them, primarily through free elections. Yet I've come to realize that the Germans were taken in by the same temptations that have always been such successful lures for men's souls. Money. Scapegoating wrong instead of accepting personal responsibility. Utopian fantasies. Collective redemption. All of these were present in the Nazi lure; all are present today in Obama's candidacy.

I've written an Open Letter to All Americans Who Love Israel, which can be read here:

Of all our allies, Israel is the most vulnerable. Are the Jews going to be once again the "canary in the coal mine"? I don't know, but it's certainly looking that way. And I know which side I'm on. Do you? Does your neighbor? Will American voters now do to the Jewish State, Israel, what the Germans did to European Jews?

The Obama Obsession with Skin Color

Someone sent me some interesting information recently about Michelle Obama and the kind of activities she considered important in college.

Below is a brief video and here is a picture (click to enlarge) of Michelle Robinson Obama's college yearbook.

As you can see from the activities listed for Michelle Robinson, she was into Black Unity and activities at the Third World Center.

According to this article from Princeton, the Third World Center "was established in 1971 to provide a social, cultural and political environment that reflects the needs and concerns of students of color at the University."

It has since been renamed the Carl A. Fields Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding. One of the goals listed is to "Sustain a sincere and continued commitment to addressing issues of diversity, equality, equity throughout all facets of the Princeton community." A couple of the academic priorities listed are "Attraction and Retention of Diverse Faculty" and "Ethnic Studies and Area Studies."

In the mission statement we find the center wants to "educate and to engage the broader University community regarding issues of cultural pluralism" and "enhance the multicultural consciousness and empowerment of our students." It encourages "exploration of diverse heritages, values and cultural experiences."

They also sponsor "dialogue groups that explore issues such as racism, sexism, heterosexism, inter-ethnic relationships and cultural identity." (emphasis added)

Given this level of ethno-centrism, one can't help but recall the racist, Afrocentric Obama pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, his obsession with skin color, and his fiery denunciations of "rich white people."

Seeing Michelle Robinson Obama's heavy involvement with this organization, it is no wonder that her thesis was on "racial divide" and entitled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community."

From The Politico:

"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

Another excerpt from her thesis:

"In defining the concept of identification or the ability to identify with the black community," the Princeton student wrote, "I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive black culture very different from white culture."

How about just embracing "American culture"?

One of the things that has helped America become a unified nation (i.e. e pluribus unum) though our ancestors come from every nation on earth has been the "melting pot" approach. Traditionally, immigrants immersed themselves in American culture and set about the task of "becoming American" not just in name and citizenship but in culture as well.

Unfortunately many ethno-centric people and the "multicultural" and "diversity" crowd take the opposite approach: out of one, many. They emphasize skin color, ethnic background and ancestral national origin. This tends to keep us divided not only in our ancestral backgrounds, but in our minds...and ultimately in our goals, values, purposes...and allegiances.

We intentionally divide ourselves when we should be celebrating our American citizenship. Unfortunately, that leaves us divided and weak before many hostile forces in the world who would love nothing more than to see our common country in ruin.

But with the growing body of evidence that Michelle Obama seems more concerned about skin color than about being American (regardless of skin color and ancestral origin), it's hardly a wonder that only in the last year, as her husband has gained national political prominence, has she for the first time been proud of her country.

My source for this yearbook information was a classmate of Michelle Robinson. He tells me that at Princeton she ate at Stevenson Hall rather than one of the "eating clubs."

"While not every one at Stevenson was a 'radical,' it was definitely not where the 'in' crowd ate," my source tells me.

He believes she did not try to assimilate at Princeton, and that perhaps her feelings of disenfranchisement were in part of her own doing. My source says that unfortunately many blacks intentionally segregated themselves from the rest of the campus at Princeton.

Michelle's husband Barack also seems to feel alienated from American culture and overly embraces "black culture." We might recall his sentiments on "white folks."

I have no problem at all with with the idea of a black man as president; after all, I've had black friends all my life, have worked with and for black people during my time in the military and since, and my best man at my wedding was a black man.

But I have grave misgivings about entrusting the leadership of our nation to anyone who is more wrapped up in their ethnic heritage than they are American heritage--whether their ethnic heritage be African, Irish, Italian, English, French or Mongolian.

In fact, evidence would strongly suggest that Barack Obama has more than a fair amount of disdain for American heritage, given his disparaging comments about the Founders and our Constitution.

If you are aware of his 2001 interview in which he discussed a "reparative" strategy for wealth redistribution, you will recall that he lamented the "constraints" the Founders put on the Constitution to limit government (and protect our freedom). Obama views the enumerated powers of the Constitution as a tragic impediment to his Marxist goal of redistributing everyones wealth as he sees fit.

Someone with this kind of Marxist ideology, and this kind of chip on their shoulder about American heritage and our form of government cannot rationally be entrusted with the leadership of our nation.

Shown is Michelle LaVaughn Robinson (Obama) in the 1985 Nassau Herald (the Princeton Univ. Yearbook). Note the organizations that Michelle were part of. Unlike other students who listed a variety of activities, including theatre, team sports, band or orchestra, etc., Michelle Obama listed only one type of activity -- activities that showed her single-minded focus on the third-world and black unity. No wonder she wasn't proud of America until recently.

Former Abortionist Explains What Abortion in Sioux Falls Was Like

Dr. Patti Giebink, OB/GYN, is the last South Dakota doctor to perform abortions at Planned Parenthood. This is an eye-opening look into what she did as an abortionist. Dr. Giebink is now the treasurer for VoteYesForLife.com and is a strong advocate for unborn life.

If you're even considering voting against Initiated Measure 11, please stop and take six minutes to watch this video.

This is a matter of the utmost importance. It is a matter dealing with life and death.

If you are considering voting against Initiated Measure 11 and for the continuation of abortion as birth control, the only honest thing to do is to be sure you know exactly what it is you are supporting. To make a vote based on ignorance is to ignore your civic--as well as moral--duty.

WARNING: this video contains graphic descriptions of abortions.

Obama Hides His Sympathy With America's Enemies

More on Barack Obama's association with people who oppose our ally Israel and U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Thanks to Free Republic, I learned about an article at The Electronic Intifada ("intifada" means "shaking off" or "uprising" in Arabic) which is critical of Obama and fears that he might "love Israel."

The author, Ali Abunimah, said that when he first met Obama in 1998, he liked him: "Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

However, as Obama had to "mainstream" himself to win his campaign, he got a little too friendly toward Israel and a little too critical of terrorist attacks against Israel for Abunimah's comfort.

But, according to Abunimah, Obama did later apologize for letting him down publicly:

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

The article has a photo of Barack and Michelle Obama at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago where Edward Said gave the keynote speech.

Wikipedia has some interesting things to say about Said:
Said's relationship with the Palestinian Authority was once so bad that PA leaders banned the sale of his books in August 1995, but improved when he hailed Arafat for rejecting Barak's offers at the Camp David 2000 Summit.

Barak bent over backwards and bared his neck for Arafat...but it wasn't good enough for Arafat (Israel still existed, perhaps?). Afterward, Arab terrorists launched a bloodbath.

It seems Said "got his head right," however. More from Wikipedia:
Ultimately, Said came to prefer and to support a state that would afford Palestinians a home with equal human rights in place of the 'Jewish' state of modern-day Israel.

"...in place of the 'Jewish' state of modern-day Israel"? Is that prettied-up language for "on the ruin of the former state of Israel"?

The entry also talks about and has a picture of Said throwing a rock at Israeli soldiers.

From working for years with domestic terrorist and anti-American Bill Ayers, to endorsements from terrorist organizations like Hamas to Obama's praise of spokesman for the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization Rashid Khalidi to his willingness to talk without precondition with some of the most belligerent of America's enemies, Barack Obama has proven himself to be incapable of being trusted with America's international welfare.

How can we possibly entertain the notion of trusting a man like this at the helm of our great nation?

HT to Free Republic.

John Carpenter’s American Vision

By John W. Whitehead

“I’m disgusted by what we’ve become in America. I truly believe there is brain death in this country. Everything we see is designed to sell us something. The only thing they want to do is take our money.”—John Carpenter

There are only a handful of directors whose films can be identified as “theirs.” John Carpenter is one of those.

In style, in composition, in technique, in sound and even in mood and texture, Carpenter rarely strays from his personal ethnos. Known primarily for their horror themes, Carpenter’s films inevitably feature pulse-pounding soundtracks, slow-moving camera work and hair-raising jolts to the nervous system as evil pops into the foreground with unexpected intensity.

Often missed by those seeking a good scare, Carpenter’s films are infused with a strong anti-authoritarian, laconic bent. Carpenter, as author John Muir writes in The Films of John Carpenter, sees the government working against its own citizens. Carpenter is a skeptic and critic. But “a close view of Carpenter’s work reveals a romantic streak beneath the skepticism,” writes Muir, “a belief down deep—far below the anti-establishment hatred—that a single committed and idealistic person can make a difference, even if society does not recognize that person as valuable or good.”

In fact, Carpenter’s central characters are always out of step with their times. Underneath their machismo, they “still believe in America” and the ideals of liberty and equal opportunity. Their beliefs place them in constant opposition with the law and the establishment, but they are nonetheless true patriots. When, for example, John Nada destroys the alien hyno-transmitter in They Live, he restores hope by delivering America a wake-up call for freedom.

This is the theme that runs throughout Carpenter’s films—the belief in American ideals and in people. “He believes that man can do better,” writes Muir, “and his heroes consistently prove that worthy goals (such as saving the Earth from malevolent shape-shifters) can be accomplished, but only through individuality.”

The following are ten of my favorite Carpenter films.

1. Assault on Precinct 13 (1976): This is a remake of Howard Hawks’ 1959 classic western Rio Bravo—much beloved by Carpenter. A street gang and assorted criminals surround and assault a police station. Paranoia abounds as the police are attacked from all sides and can see no way out.

2. Halloween (1978): This low-budget horror masterpiece launched Carpenter’s career. Acclaimed as the most successful independent motion picture of all time, the story centers on a deranged youth who returns to his hometown to conduct a murderous rampage after fifteen years in an asylum. This film is the beginning of the modern slasher film and has been remade many times, but none come close to the original.

3. The Fog (1980): This is a disturbing ghost story made in the mode of Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds (1963). Here the menace besieging a small town is not a pack of winged pests but rather a deadly fog bank that cloaks vengeful, faceless, evil spirits.

4. Escape from New York (1981): This is the ultimate urban nightmare. A ruined Manhattan of the future is an anarchic prison for America’s worst criminals. When the U.S. president is captured as a hostage, the government sends a disgraced, rebellious war hero into Manhattan in what seems to be an impossible rescue mission.

5. The Thing (1982): Considered by many as Carpenter’s best film, this is a remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name. A team of scientists in a remote Antarctic outpost discover a buried spaceship with a ravenous, mutating alien that eventually creates a claustrophic, paranoid environment within their compound. The social commentary is obvious as the horrible creature literally erupts and bursts out of human flesh throughout the film. Are we all aliens?

6. Christine (1983): This film adaptation of Stephen King’s novel finds a young man with a classic automobile that is demonically possessed. The car, representing technology with a will of its own, goes on a murderous rampage.

7. Starman (1984): An alien from an advanced civilization takes on the guise of a young widow’s recently deceased husband. The couple then takes off on a long drive to rendezvous with the alien spacecraft so he can return home. A beautiful science fiction romance that earned Jeff Bridges an Academy Award nomination for best actor.

8. Big Trouble in Little China (1986): A trucker, who walks and talks like John Wayne, finds himself in an underworld battle in San Francisco’s Chinatown with an army of spirits. This is Carpenter’s parody of the action film and one of his favorite genres, the kung fu movie.

9. They Live (1988): A drifter discovers that an alien conspiracy has taken over America. This film suggests that the Reagan Revolution and yuppie movement of the 1980s were actually the result of an invasion by greedy, skeletal aliens. A great commentary on the use of subliminal advertising to control the populace.

10. In the Mouth of Madness (1995): A successful horror novelist’s fans become so engrossed in his stories that they slip into dementia and carry out the grisly acts depicted in his books. When this film was being conceived, conservative politicians were criticizing horror movies for promoting violence. This film parodied that argument. As Carpenter said, “This ludicrous argument that television/video violence is the cause of society’s ills. When I was growing up it was horror comics that said, ‘Religion seeks discipline through fear.’ That’s what this current moral crusade is all about. Government under God, and you only have to look at Iran to see where this avenue of thought ends up.”

Thus, in Carpenter’s view, the real enemies of freedom—the real aliens—are us. As one of Carpenter’s characters concludes in They Live: “Maybe they’ve always been with us…those things out there. Maybe they love seeing us hate each other; watching us kill each other off; feeding on our own cold…hearts.”

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Clicky Web Analytics