Duncan Hunter: A Solid Conservative

I've been pointing out Mike Huckabee's conservative shortcomings for several weeks now. I thought it was time to point out someone with a solid record of conservatism across the board: Duncan Hunter (R-CA).

Here are some excerpts from his long voting record from Project Vote Smart:

12/06/2006 Abortion Pain Bill Y
05/25/2005 Overseas Military Facilities Abortion Amendment N
10/02/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
10/18/2007 SCHIP Reauthorization N
06/22/2005 Flag Desecration Resolution Y
09/26/2006 Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006 Y
06/04/1998 Religious Freedom Amendment bill Y
04/26/2001 Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 Y
03/22/1996 Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995 Y
09/14/2006 Secure Fence Act of 2006 Y
12/16/2005 Border Security bill Y
01/10/2007 Minimum Wage Increase N
05/23/1996 Minimum Wage Increase bill N
09/23/2004 Pledge of Allegiance Protection bill Y
10/10/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq Y
07/19/2006 Stem Cell Research Bill N
03/03/2003 Prohibition on Human Cloning - Passage Y
07/18/2006 Same Sex Marriage Resolution Y
07/15/1999 Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999 Y
06/29/1999 National Day of Prayer Resolution Y
06/17/1999 Ten Commandments Amendment Y
03/05/1997 Display of the Ten Commandments Y
08/01/1996 Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act of 1996 Y
06/21/2000 WTO Withdrawal resolution Y
05/24/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 N
12/21/1995 Welfare Reform Bill Y

Here is how he is rated by various policy organizations:

Planned Parenthood 0%
Right to Life 100%
Animal rights 0% - 42%, with most in the 20% range
Arts/Humanities 0%-6%
Tax reform 56%-100%
Business interests 62%-100%
Separation of church/state 0%
ACLU 5%
Eagle Forum 86%
Christian Coalition 100%
Concerned Women for America 100%
National Education Association 21%
Family Research Council 100%
American Family Association 100%
Gun Owners of America 100%
National Rifle Association "A"
Immigration/Border Control 80%-100%
National Organization for Women 5%

I think these ratings speak volumes for his conservative credentials, both in the organizations that rate him highly, and those which rate him low.

Yes, Hunter is low on the ladder in the polls right now...but that can change, and YOU can change it. Giuliani has dropped recently and Huckabee has gone up recently as people became more aware of Giuliani's liberal stance in many areas. The same thing can happen with Huckabee and Hunter as people realize how liberal Huckabee is on the fiscal/immigration side.

Talk is cheap. A candidate can say anything they want on their campaign website, in an interview, or at a speech; and they hope most people won't take the time to do the research to see if their walk matches their talk.

Duncan Hunter has a proven track record of conservatism, as a fiscal conservative, a national defense conservative, and a social conservative.

If conservatives are serious about electing a conservative, I believe Duncan Hunter is the guy to get behind.

More Concern Over Huckabee

Pat Toomey's National Review column today does nothing to alleviate my concern over Mike Huckabee as another Republican of mixed stripes. I've heard nothing to undermine claims that he is solid on abortion and marriage, but in many other areas he leaves a LOT to be desired.

During Huckabee’s tenure as governor, the average Arkansan’s tax burden increased 47 percent, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. A dyed-in-blue tax hiker, Huckabee supported raising sales taxes, gas taxes, grocery taxes, even nursing home bed taxes. He virulently opposed a congressional moratorium on taxing Internet access, and sat on the sidelines while his Democratic legislature pushed the largest tax hike in Arkansas history into law. What’s more, on his watch, and frequently at his behest, state spending increased by 50 percent, more than double the rate of inflation, and the number of state government workers rose by 20 percent.

Pat Toomey also has this to say:

Huckabee makes no secret of his desire to turn the GOP leftward, calling himself a “different kind of Republican,” adopting protectionist positions, and peppering his campaign speeches with the kind of class warfare rhetoric one expects to hear from John Edwards. No doubt, this is the reason that the liberal media is so smitten with him.Instead of talking about curtailing government spending, Huckabee refuses to endorse President Bush’s veto of a vastly expanded S-CHIP. He is an unabashed fan of No Child Left Behind and an opponent of private school choice. Huckabee is also quickly becoming the labor unions’ favorite Republican, recently gaining a union endorsement along with Hillary Clinton.

And consider this on the environmental front, from Point Carbon on Oct. 16, 2007:

Former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee, said he supports a mandatory cap-and-trade system to cut US greenhouse gas emissions, becoming the second Republican presidential candidate to call for a carbon market to address climate change.

Do we really need a Republican candidate who buys into the global warming fantasy (which is rapidly being debunked on all fronts) and this carbon market scam?

Schlafly on Huckabee: Destroyed Conservatism in Ark.

If you've read this blog for long, or talked to me personally in recent weeks about presidential candidates, you know I'm not the adoring fan of Mike Huckabee that many of my "values voter" friends are.

Today, John Fund's Wall Street Journal column reveals more of why I am not:

But I also know he is not the "consistent conservative" he now claims to be.

Nor am I alone. Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a key backer of his early runs for office, was once "his No. 1 fan." She was bitterly disappointed with his record. "He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal," she says. "Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office."

Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

Phyllis Schlafly is a hero and icon in conservative circles; I saw powerful people stand in awe of her over the weekend at the Washington Briefing. I hope they will listen to her on this.

Also consider this:

"He has zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement," says Blant Hurt, a former part owner of, and columnist for, Arkansas Business magazine. "He's hostile to free trade, hiked sales and grocery taxes, backed sales taxes on Internet purchases, and presided over state spending going up more than twice the inflation rate."

I'm not a big fan of "free trade" myself, preferring something like "fair trade" where American businesses and workers aren't left high and dry in the global market. But I most assuredly am not a tax-and-spender as Huckabee appears to be.

Even Rick Scarborough, who supports Huckabee, admits in the article: "Mike has always sought the validation of elites." I believe this adolescent tendency by many in politics is why the Left enjoys so much dominance--so many are seeking the approval of Leftist elites.

And finally:

Many Huckabee supporters have told me their man should be judged by what he's saying on the campaign trail today. Fair enough. Mr. Huckabee was the only GOP candidate to refuse to endorse President Bush's veto of the Democrats' bill to vastly expand the Schip health-care program. Only he and John McCain have endorsed the discredited cap-and-trade system to limit global-warming emissions that has proved a fiasco in Europe.

"What he's saying on the campaign trail today" is exactly what we SHOULDN'T be judging Huckabee on. Words are cheap; deeds are what count. For Huckabee to trash immigration controls in practice, then come on to values voters last weekend like he just arrived from a Minuteman seminar was not only disappointing, it ticked me off pretty good. I can stand disagreeing with someone, but if you lie and pander to me, that's a quick way to get on my bad side. (I told a friend Saturday night that, oddly, I walked away from Giuliani's speech with far more respect and good will than I did Huckabee's--but I still won't support Giuliani).

We've had far too much big-spending and Leftist compromise out of George Bush. It sounds like Huckabee is cut out of that mold, and then some. We don't need more of that. We need a candidate that's going to lead this nation in the right direction, and while Huckabee would undoubtedly be better than any of the Democrat candidates, are we really looking for a "better than so-and-so" candidate?

Or are we looking for someone who will lead the United States boldly back to the values and solid foundation of fiscal and personal responsibility that built the greatest nation on earth?

Children Removed from Christians out of Political Correctness

Here's the mirror of the "Children Placed with Pedophiles out of Political Correctness" post I made yesterday. It's an illustration of how upside down Western civilization has become.

From the UK Daily Mail:

They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 30 vulnerable children.

But Vincent and Pauline Matherick will this week have their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.

To do so, they claim, would force them to promote homosexuality and go against their Christian faith.

The 11-year-old boy, who has been in their care for two years, will be placed in a council hostel this week and the Mathericks will no longer be given children to look after.

The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

When the Mathericks objected, they were told they would be taken off the register of foster parents.

On one hand, officials are so afraid of political correctness and being branded "homophobes" that they'll leave children with homosexual pedophiles after complaints.

On the other hand, Christians foster parents who refuse to indoctrinate children in homosexual acceptance have children taken away from them.

The Bible says in Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness."

These two incidents illustrate what this verse warns against.

17 Year Old Exercises 'Choice' In Killing Pregnant Girlfriend

From LifeNews.com:

Winnipeg, Canada (LifeNews.com) -- A Canadian teenager has been given six years in prison for killing his pregnant girlfriend after she refused his request to have an abortion. The teenager was not charged in the death of the woman's unborn child because Canada does not have a law similar to the U.S. that holds criminals accountable for their deaths.

In February 2007, the teenager killed 24-year-old Roxanne Fernando after she refused to have an abortion. He buried her in a snowbank in a remote area a few days later.

The unnamed 17-year-old received the strongest penalty under law for juveniles.

He could have been tried in adult court, but pleaded guilty to the girl's death in exchange for prosecutors not taking the case there. Had he been tried as an adult, he would have faced a mandatory sentence of life in prison.

The six years in jail will be followed by a four year probation sentence, according to a CBC report.

"The circumstances of this crime are extremely aggravating," said Judge Marvin Garfinkel. "[The killer's] conduct is completely inexplicable."

Actually it isn't that inexplicable. Just as a woman usually kills her unborn child because it is an inconvenience, this 17-year-old killed his girlfriend because, due to her unwillingness to kill her unborn child, the woman and child were proving an inconvenience to the 17-year-old killer. Like the woman who removes an inconvenience from her life, so was this young man. Both were genetically distinct human beings, only one was older than the other.

And the government sentenced him to six years for ending the life of a 24-year-old who likely had about 50 more years to live. Steal 50 years, lose 6. Not a bad deal (for the killer), when you think about it.

When we treat life cheaply, should it come as a surprise when the value people place on it spirals progressively downward?

Bush Outspends LBJ

From McClatchy:

Take almost any yardstick and Bush generally exceeds the spending of his predecessors.

When adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending — or budget items that Congress and the president can control, including defense and domestic programs, but not entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare — shot up at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush’s first six years, Slivinski calculates.

That tops the 4.6 percent annual rate Johnson logged during his 1963-69 presidency. By these standards, Ronald Reagan was a tightwad; discretionary spending grew by only 1.9 percent a year on his watch.

Discretionary spending went up in Bush's first term by 48.5 percent, not adjusted for inflation, more than twice as much as Bill Clinton did (21.6 percent) in two full terms, Slivinski reports.

If this is "compassionate conservatism," no thanks. Sounds more like liberal-lite to me...and I'm not sure if the "lite" is warranted.

We don't need more of this from the next Republican president (are you listening, Mike Huckabee?).

Media Bias: Hoping for What We Report

Have you ever wondered how the record-setting economic numbers of the past few years have produced such doom-and-gloom reporting from the media?

Larry Elder examines "Why so many Americans believe we're in a recession."

From Larry Elder's WorldNetDaily column today:

Two professors, John Lott, economist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Kevin A. Hassett, the Institute's director of economic policy studies, looked at newspaper articles on the economy. They wrote, "We found that newspaper headlines reporting economic news on unemployment, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales and durable goods tended to be much more frequently negative when a Republican was in the White House. And this was true even after accounting for the economic numbers on which the stories were based and how those numbers were changing over time." So bad economic news becomes less bad economic news with a Democrat sitting in the White House. With a Republican in the White House, however, good economic news becomes less good, and bad becomes even worse.

The Pew Center for Excellence in Journalism surveys journalists annually. Their report, "The State of the News Media 2007," found more than one-third (34 percent) of national journalists identified themselves as liberal, as compared to one-fifth (20 percent) of the general public. Only 7 percent of the national press self-identified as conservative, compared with 33 percent of the general public. The press and the public are widely divided on social issues and values, as well. For example, while 58 percent of Americans think belief in God is necessary to be moral, only 6 percent of national journalists agree.

The Pew Center report only covers what journalists admit about themselves. And while 59 percent of this pool of national reporters couldn't think of a single news organization that was liberal, a whopping 82 percent said they could think of conservative news coverage. Even so, 64 percent of national journalists admit that criticism about the blurring of reporting and commentary is valid.

Elder said that 34% identified themselves as liberal and 7% as conservative. What about that other 59%? Since liberals usually run from the "liberal" label and prefer to call themselves something cushy like "progressive" or better yet "moderate," I'll bet most of that remaining 59% is made of masquerading "moderate" liberals.

I believe this slanted media coverage also accounts for why, despite progress in Iraq, public support for the effort has eroded. Average people can't be subjected to the anti-war drum beat of the media day after day and not be expected to pick up some of it.

Perhaps the saddest part of media bias is that I don't think most biased journalists even realize it when they slant a story. They may see their leftist bias as so natural, that to assume anything to the contrary would be like expecting the sun to rise in the north.

After all, doesn't everyone see the world like Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton?

Children Placed with Pedophiles out of Political Correctness

From the UK Daily Mail:

A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.

Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual couples in the country to be officially approved as foster parents.

They looked after 18 children in only 15 months.

With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems.

In reality, they were paedophiles, who repeatedly abused the children in their care.

Even when the mother of two of the children reported her suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men's explanations and did nothing.

Instead of banning children from staying with Faunch and Wathey, they sent youngsters with more serious problems to them. Between them, the couple abused four boys aged between eight and 14.

No wonder the social worker was afraid of being branded a "homophobe;" you can get a visit from the police in England just for reiterating the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality.

It's not a stretch to consider it possible that people who are willing to ignore one sexual norm (heterosexuality) might also be willing to ignore other sexual norms (pedophilia).

Isn't it wonderful how "hate crimes" legislation protects innocent children?

Is Media Bias Real?

The new issue of Salvo Magazine examines what we all knew (whether everyone will admit it or not): the media is overwhelmingly biased leftward.

Similarly, a UCLA-led study released in late 2005 found that “almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.” Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and lead researcher on the study, said that he “suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican.” But he was “surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.” Co-author Jeffrey Milyo, a University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar, added that “overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left.”

Some journalists make their political preferences clear by how they spend their own money. After all, political donations are not exactly subtle. A 2007 investigation by MSNBC.com reporter Bill Dedman tracked journalists who made political contributions to federal candidates, political action committees, and political parties between January 2004 and the first quarter of 2007. The good news? Only a tiny percentage of journalists made political -contributions. The predictable news? Out of the 143 journalists identified as making political contributions, 125—or 87 percent—gave to Democrats or liberal causes, while only 16 percent gave to Republicans.

What did that UCLA study find?

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

Salvo looks to the global warming scare as a good example of media bias. Read the whole Salvo article here.

Slideshow: Gala Ball Honoring Dr. James Dobson

This slideshow is from Saturday night's Gala Ball Honoring Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family for his lifetime of ministry to the family.

Constitutional Contempt

From Walter E. Williams' WorldNetDaily column today on contempt for the Constitution:

Here's the oath of office administered to members of the House and Senate: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." A similar oath is sworn to by the president and federal judges.

In each new Congress since 1995, Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359). The Act, which has yet to be enacted into law, reads: "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief."

We BADLY need this law. While it probably wouldn't immediately curb unconstitutional legislation (because the the executive and judicial branches are also complicit), I believe it would help in that, even if liberals came up with some twisted, tortured constitutional basis for unconstitutional bills, such a weak foundation would be immediately identifiable and hopefully debated on the congressional floor. Lawbreaking (even among lawmakers) can often be prevented if they know their misdeeds will be exposed to the light of truth.

Any law that does not stem from specific, enumerated authority within the U.S. Constitution is an illegal law. As Williams points out, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the power of the federal government, and the 10th Amendment further clarifies it's limited scope. James Madison elaborates on this limited scope in Federalist Paper #45, and both Madison and Thomas Jefferson have spoken to the limited authority of the "General Welfare" clause.

To introduce a law, and certainly to vote to approve a law outside the authority of the Constitution is to show contempt for the Constitution.

A government and a people who show contempt for their own highest law cannot expect to maintain a coherent civilization indefinitely.

Slideshow: Washington Briefing, Day Two

Below is a slideshow from Day Two of the Washington Briefing, Oct. 20, 2007

Slideshow: Around D.C.

This slideshow includes some pics the air when we were about to land at Reagan National Airport. Also from around Washington D.C. as we traveled about to various activities.

Note: if you see Bob Fischer, Dale Bartscher, Dennis Schmidt or Mike Causey...ask them how many Religious Right-wingers you can fit into the back seat of a taxi cab. :-) If you ask just right, they might tell you.

Stanek: 'Behind the scenes at FRC Briefing'

Jill Stanek's WorldNetDaily column today covers "Behind the scenes at FRC Briefing" which talks about the private meeting of values voters leaders to discuss options in the event of a Giuliani nomination by the Republicans.

For a meeting which was "off the record," she covers the meeting well "speaking in generalities."

I was at the meeting, and I noted a key area where I differ with her account:

For many well-researched reasons, third-party chatter was laid to rest.

Actually, it wasn't. While some were reticent to move forward in exploring third party options, it definitely wasn't laid to rest. In fact, there is at least one meeting scheduled for the near future on that topic.

I'm bound by the same "off the record" status as Stanek, so I can't go into any further detail, but since she brought it up, I felt obligated to at least point out that while a few may want the "third party option" to be laid to rest, it isn't...not by a long shot.

Only the Republican establishment can do that...by ending it's support of Rudy Giuliani, the candidate who is least equipped to represent core Republican values.

Slideshow: Washington Briefing, Day One

Below is a slideshow from Day One of the Washington Briefing, Oct. 19, 2007.

Slideshow: Maaynei Ha'Yeshua Award for Dr. Dobson

Below is a slideshow of pics from a small reception I was invited to last Thursday night in Washington, D.C.

The reception was for Dr. James Dobson, awarding him a shofar from Maaynei Ha'Yeshua Medical Center of Israel, for his defense of life

Uncle Oscar's one-legged milk stool also has a message

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: The importance of open government needs to be told and retold. There are many ways to describe what makes good government. Today's column compares three of these elements. In other words, good government is like a three-legged stool. When this comparison was made in a column I read, I couldn't help but be reminded of Uncle Oscar's one-legged milk stool. This simile or metaphor both send a message.

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR of the Kentucky Press Association, David Thompson, recently wrote a column that appeared in a number of newspapers across the country. His theme was on what is needed to make good government. It doesn't make any difference if it is a school board, or a city, county, state or the federal government, to be successful, it must have these three elements. (Full Article)

Values Voters: They're Not Bluffing

From yesterday's Newsweek interview of Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

NEWSWEEK: So we wanted to ask you, first of all, about the third-party idea and whether it's serious. A number of people are suggesting it's just a threat.

Richard Land: My intuition [is that] this is not a bluff. If Giuliani is the nominee there will be a third party. There are things that Giuliani could do to help mitigate the damage. But I have been in too many discussions over the last 15 years where evangelical leaders have said, "The one thing we will never allow to happen is for the Republican Party to take us for granted the way the Democratic Party too often takes the African-American community for granted."
This is not a bluff.

Whether a new third party will form in the event of a Giuliani nomination, or whether values voters will coalesce around the nominee of an existing minority party, isn't written in stone. But one thing isn't up in the air.

I know the people involved in this discussion; I've known some of them for years. I can't speak for all of them, only the ones I've heard from and the ones I know personally. I can echo what Land said: they're not bluffing.

Huckabee Sees the Light on Immigration?

Seems I'm not the only one who noted some dissonance last Saturday when Mike Huckabee came out at the Washington Briefing sounding like a true-blue immigration reformer.

From OneNewsNow:

Roy Beck, president of Numbers USA, says Huckabee's past record on immigration has not matched his recent rhetoric, citing several instances when the former governor "stood up for illegal aliens" during federal immigration raids in Arkansas. "It does not seem to me that, as governor, he particularly lived by those principles, at least strongly so. I am always happy to see someone learn more about an issue and come around and take better positions," he states. "We welcome what seems to be some change of heart."

Beck says Huckabee received an "F" for his past record on immigration, but his recent statements have pulled him up to the "B" range.

I talked to a lot of folks, many of them leaders in the "values voter" constituency, at the Washington Briefing, who are enthusiastic about Huckabee. Sadly, not a single one was aware of Huckabee's disappointing record on immigration, nor were they aware of his "I'm a grace Christian, not a law Christian" and big-government leanings that sound a lot like President Bush's misguided "compassionate conservatism."

If he's come around on immigration, that's great. If that's the case, I hope he also comes around to realizing that more government is not the way to deal with our most pressing problems, but getting responsibility, accountability and community back at the level of average Americans.

You can talk the talk all day long, but until you walk the walk, I'm unconvinced. As they say, talk is cheap, and we've been lied to too many times by politicians for me to buy something without proof of what I'm getting.

Hillary Clinton is in the lead?

I keep reading how Hillary Clinton is "supposedly" the favorite candidate and pushing so far ahead of all the others in popularity and voter-getting status as to be the shoe-in selection by the Democrats. If all this is true, how come I only know "possibly" one... maybe two... people that would even simply "consider" voting for her?

Considering that I'm not living in another dimension of time and space, I'm betting we aren't getting a true picture of where Hillary actually stands with the majority of people in this country. On the other hand, too many people will strive to go with the winner, and if these people believe the hype about Hillary -- that is where they will lean. 'Course, if it looks like Obama is in the lead -- that's where they will wander off to without looking back.

Hillary may know how to play the game and use public relation tactics, but I'm betting she isn't a true winner in the minds of most! If she is... I must be living in isolation and somebody forgot to tell me!

Montgomery Found Guilty Of Killing Pregnant Woman

From KMBC.com (KMBC - Channel 9 News out of Kansas City)...

"Montgomery Found Guilty Of Killing Pregnant Woman

POSTED: 12:40 pm CDT October 22, 2007
UPDATED: 5:45 pm CDT October 22, 2007

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A woman whose attorneys had argued that she was suffering from delusions when she killed an expectant mother and cut the baby from her womb was found guilty Monday.


After about four hours of deliberation, jurors convicted Lisa Montgomery, 39, of kidnapping resulting in death in the Dec. 16, 2004, attack on 23-year-old Bobbie Jo Stinnett in the northwest Missouri town of Skidmore. Jurors deliberated for about four hours before rejecting Montgomery's insanity defense. Besides convicting her, the jury also could have acquitted her outright or found her not guilty by reason of insanity.

Prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty."

(Complete news report))

Still another example of the madness in this world!

Whatever Happened to Common Sense at the End of Life?

I was reading Lifeissues.net and came across this excellent article by Nancy Valko, RN. It says it all so well.

"Withdrawal of treatment, "living wills", terminal sedation, assisted suicide, organ donation, etc. Currently, it's virtually impossible to escape all the death talk in the media and elsewhere. For example, if you are admitted to a hospital for almost any reason, you or your relatives will be asked if you have or would like information about documents formalizing your "end-of-life" choices.

But despite all the hype, not every situation involving end-of-life issues has to involve wrestling with big ethical dilemmas. Many times, there are relatively simple considerations or strategies that actually used to be commonly employed until the introduction of the so-called "right to die". Accurate information, common sense and a good understanding of ethical principles can cut through the "right-to-die" fog and make a person's last stage of life as good as possible both for the person and his or her family."

(Complete article)

Report: Sexual Misconduct Plaguing U.S. Schools

Report: Sexual Misconduct Plaguing U.S. Schools
Saturday, October 20, 2007

Associated Press

The young teacher hung his head, avoiding eye contact. Yes, he had touched a fifth-grader's breast during recess. "I guess it was just lust of the flesh," he told his boss.

That got Gary C. Lindsey fired from his first teaching job in Oelwein, Iowa. But it didn't end his career. He taught for decades in Illinois and Iowa, fending off at least a half-dozen more abuse accusations.

When he finally surrendered his teaching license in 2004 — 40 years after that first little girl came forward — it wasn't a principal or a state agency that ended his career. It was one persistent victim and her parents.

Lindsey's case is just a small example of a widespread problem in American schools: sexual misconduct by the very teachers who are supposed to be nurturing the nation's children."

This article is a must read!

I was both surprised and impressed to see the following...

"The United States has grown more sympathetic to victims of sex abuse over recent decades, particularly when it comes to young people. Police have made pursuing Internet predators a priority. People convicted of abuse typically face tough sentences and registry as sex offenders.

Even so, sexually abusive teachers continue to take advantage, and there are several reasons why.

For one, many Americans deny the problem, and even treat the abuse with misplaced fascination. Popular media reports trumpet relationships between attractive female teachers and male students.

"It's dealt with in a salacious manner with late-night comedians saying 'What 14-year-old boy wouldn't want to have sex with his teacher?' It trivializes the whole issue," says Robert Shoop, a professor of educational administration at Kansas State University."

(Full article)

Popular media is mishandling information and making wrongful seem fascinating?

Entertainment peoples are causing serious matters to be trivialized?

Naw! Now they wouldn't do that, now would they?

Interview with Newsday

Yesterday at noon I was interviewed by Newsday about the Giuliani speech I'd heard earlier that morning.

Though I talked with Craig Gordon about 5 minutes, only one sentence made the story (not that uncommon; usually only a fraction of any interview makes it to the final story). Here's a bit preceding my quote to put it in context:

"He comforted a lot of conservatives," said Bob Kilbanks, an anti-abortion Republican from Pennsylvania. "It would be against my conscience to vote for him, but I think he would get a lot of conservative votes and he would come as near to protecting life without changing his views and values."

Others weren't so sure.

"If it was him or Clinton, I'd hold my nose and vote for him," said Bob Ellis, 40, a Web designer from Rapid City, S.D. -- hardly a ringing endorsement but a reflection that Giuliani's argument that he can stop Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton is taking hold.

Actually, as regards my statement and it's implications, it was NOT a reflection that Giuliani's argument is taking hold. In fact, I tried to make it clear that I don't think Giuliani can win, whether people like me hold our noses and vote for him or not. As I've said before, conservatives will NEVER get energized about his campaign, and without that energy, unless Hillary stumbles badly, I don't think he can win. (But Gordon interviewed a lot of people yesterday, so some of it probably ran together).

Also, my statement that I'd hold my nose and vote for him presupposes there is no viable third party or "minority party" candidate. If the Republican Party nominates Giuliani, and a viable third party candidate does emerge, I will likely vote for that other candidate.

Giuliani was received politely by the crowd yesterday. And as I blogged on his speech yesterday, he gained my respect (and from others that I talked to yesterday) for not trying to shine us on and just say what we wanted to hear (unlike some others who spoke yesterday).

But as I told reporter Craig Gordon, that additional respect for Giuliani's forthrightness still does not outweigh the critical issues of life, marriage and gun control. Gordon repeatedly asked me if Giuliani had changed my mind about supporting him or voting for him, and I just kept reiterating variations of what I just said about the critical issues.

Well, I just finished a wonderful worship service put on by the Family Research Council. In fact, I think it's inspired me to pray more and spend more quality time with the Lord...and perhaps less blogging and such pursuits (that'll probably make you liberals happy). There are only so many hours in a day, and when it comes down to it, if I spend more time with God, he will make the things I do (hopefully the things he appoints me to do), more productive with less effort and less time spent.

Dale Bartscher, Dennis Schmidt and I are about to head over to the National Mall, the White House (outside), and the Capitol to take tons of pictures and appreciate the magnificent, wonderful, and unique thing God has done in creating the United States of America.

May God bless you today, and if you live in America, thank him, as we will be this afternoon, for his mercy in letting us live in the best country on earth.