Stoplight: Makin' Stuff Up

Your guide to makin' stuff up and saying others are makin' stuff up.

It's a power phrase. Use it today!

Democrat Friends in Low Places

A great set of buddies that Barack Obama and the DNC has.

Obama's Muslim outreach coordinator, Mazen Asabahi, resigned after it was learned he had ties to controversial imam Jamal Said.

The president of Islamic Society of North America, Ingrid Mattson, is being given a prominent role in an interfaith event at the Democrat Convention in Denver (the same one atheists have demanded to be a part of?). Her group has been identified as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a terrorism trial for Holy Land Foundation support of Hamas.

Any connection to why most Democrats (except maybe Joe Lieberman) seem to be soft on the War on Terror?

Biden Running With a Clean, Articulate African American

Wasn't Democrat vice presidential candidate Joe Biden the one who said of Barack Obama:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Dismal Visions of Ones Own Country

This video (which is intended to be in support of Barack Obama) does a good job of illustrating the differences in how liberals see America and how conservatives see America.

For liberals, America is a place of crippling high gas prices (that myopic liberal energy policy created), foreclosures, natural disasters, closed factories, windmill farms (that kill birds, mess up the skyline and drive you crazy),



The ad tries to invoke thoughts of Martin Luther King Jr...but somehow it just falls flat. MLK Jr was a man of vision who, despite some failings, believed in the transcendent moral values that made America great--and he believed in true equality, not pandering, race-baiting, quotas and guilt.

This ad is inspiring as heck, isn't it. If your goal and purpose is running down your own country, I guess it is.

We Have Met the Enemy

American Minute from William J. Federer

"We have met the enemy and they are ours," wrote Navy Captain Oliver Hazard Perry, who died AUGUST 23, 1819.

Captain Perry was renowned for his victory during the War of 1812 over 6 British warships in the Battle of Lake Erie.

On September 10, 1813, Perry's vessels, with many sailors being free blacks, were anchored at Put-in-Bay, Ohio, blocking the supply route to Fort Malden. The British squadron, consisting of two ships, two brigs, one schooner and one sloop, approached, commanded by the one-armed Commodore Robert Barclay, who helped defeat Napoleon's fleet in the Battle of Trafalgar.

Strong winds prevented Perry from getting in a safe position and with no long range firepower his flagship was crippled and most of his crew killed by British cannons.

In a courageous move, the 28-year-old Perry switched to the ship "Niagara" and sailed directly across the British line, firing broadside. He won the battle in 15 minutes and forced Barclay to surrender.

This pivotal victory secured the Northwest Territory for the United States, opened supply lines and lifted the nation's morale.

To the sailors on deck Captain Oliver Hazard Perry remarked: "The prayers of my wife are answered."

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.

Joe Biden on His Running Mate

Word is out: Barack Obama has picked Joe Biden as his running mate for the White House.

Check out Biden's powerful endorsement of the lead on his ticket:

Education Spending: Perceptions Versus Reality

With so much discussion over the South Dakota school funding lawsuit, a report from the Hoover Institute sheds some interesting light on people's perception of what is being spent on education.

A report called "What Americans Think about Their Schools" finds that what people think is being spent and what is actually spent are far apart.

According to the report, across the country per-pupil spending varies from $5,644 to $24,939,with an average of $10,377.

As you can see from the Hoover graph below, guesses were way off. More than 40% of respondents, guessed $1000 or less was being spent per pupil. That's a tiny bit different than the $10,377 national average--even than the $5,644 low end.

That figure of $4,231 would be even farther off, were it not for a small percentage of respondents who guessed extremely high amounts (wishful thinking?).



Maybe if people had a better understanding of just how much is already being spent, there wouldn't be such angst among some for more.

In fact, if people had a handle on must how much overhead there is in the education system and how much wasteful spending their is, they might even call for a reduction in spending until the establishment gets it's act together by trimming the fat and putting more money actually in the classroom.

The 'Mainstream' Media Gives 15:1 to Dems

About a month ago William Tate provided the Nth proof of media bias in Investors Business Daily.

Liberal apologists like to point to any cockamamie statistic they can unearth which actually isn't stacked heavily to the Left to "prove" media bias is a myth. But the number of conservative versus liberal talking heads you have on a news analysis show means very little.

People understand that talking-head and news analysis shows are about 80% opinion and 20% objective reporting.

Where the bias really lives--and where it is most dangerous--is on the "news" pages. Whether it be the front page of the newspaper, the top-of-the-hour radio news, the network nightly news, or the "headline news," the avenue which attempts to pass itself off as "objective news" is the area most full of bias.

And it is the most dangerous place for the bias because a large number of people are lulled into accepting at face value that this is "news," that this is "objective journalism." So when creeps (or more often stampedes) in, people are deceived.

They aren't just getting the facts so that they may evaluate those facts and come to a reasonable conclusion. They are getting some facts, colored and flavored with the bias of the reporter or anchor.

When news people sneer at one side of the ideological divide while smiling at the other, or when news people accept the claims of one side without question while giving the other side the fifth degree, or when news people hammer one side while ignoring the other...consumers of "news" get a dose of something they didn't ask for and that wasn't mentioned "on the label." It's like buying a bottle of water, only to find that it contains lemon flavoring...or a healthy dose of LSD.

But getting back to the IBD piece, while journalists typically profess objectivity, not only does their news coverage illustrate the untruth of that contention, so do their behind-the-scenes allegiances.

As you can see from the "money trail," news outlets give money overwhelmingly to Democrats. By a 15:1 ratio.

Even the much-maligned Fox News gave far more to Democrats than Republicans. At least they, unlike the rest of the herd, manage to maintain a reasonable standard of objective reporting. Of course, to the liberal apologists, anything truly objective must be biased toward the Right; they've gotten so used to cover-fire from the "mainstream" media that the absence of that cover-fire surely must indicate bias to the Right.

In and of these numbers themselves, they prove nothing. Theoretically it should be possible for a journalist to hold a particular ideological bias, yet commit himself or herself to reporting the facts and only the facts. In fact, there are a few journalists out there who, frankly, do such a good job of reporting factually that I have no idea whether they are liberal or conservative.

But when you look at these numbers in light of the "product" we receive from the "mainstream" media, the bias only becomes more clear.

But people are seeing through the pretense of objectivity with increasing numbers. But not nearly quickly enough, as the media awe over Barack Obama illustrates. Too many who worship Obama as some kind of messiah get their daily delusion fed with fresh doses of dogma from the "mainstream" media who refuse to report on Obama's dreadful lack of experience...and the dangerous radicalism of what experience he does have.

The best evidence of media bias always remains the slanted reporting: hyping Republican scandals while ignoring Democrat ones, identifying plenty of evil conservatives out to take away your birthday but never a liberal to be found, the adulation for liberal politicians and causes contrasted to the skepticism and fear of conservative ones, and of course the scowls and sneers over anything conservative.

If the media wants to be in the tank for the liberals, they should at least have the honesty to come right out and admit it. At least then there would be no delusions that what we were getting was liberal propaganda.

As it stands, it's false adverting of a product at best, and ultimately subversive deception that undermines the American people's ability to make an informed decision.

Morality and liberalism, John Edwards style

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

Certainly we've not heard the last about the John Edwards scandal. Despite the former presidential candidate's public statements of remorse, there remains far too much that doesn't add up.

For instance, we're being asked to swallow a bizarre story that a member of his campaign staff is the father of Edwards' mistress's child. Either John Edwards is not done lying to us or we don't fully appreciate the scope of the behind-the-scenes moral depravity of his self-righteous campaign.

Let's assume for the moment that no legal infractions occurred and that Edwards' lapses were exclusively moral. What is the relevance of this behavior to his qualifications as a political leader and possible president?

Scandals in the private lives of politicians are, sadly, hardly rare. There is a line of reasoning that suggests it's prudish to see them as relevant to the man's fitness for his job.

As put in a recent op-ed by a university journalism professor: "history is full of courageous leaders who in their private lives were terrible and abusive spouses and parents -- depressives, drunks, bullies. Individuals have a way of partitioning their lives, handling one set of duties commendably and another abysmally."

I would argue that for liberals, typified by John Edwards, such partitioning of private from the public is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

Why? Because to be this kind of liberal you've got to stand traditional morality on its head.

Traditional morality is a bottom-up process. It starts at the individual level. The Ten Commandments are addressed to "thou," not "We the People." It begins with individuals taking personal responsibility for the moral tone of their own lives and the social reality that results is the collective product of that individual behavior.

Traditional guidelines are to love our neighbor, our brother. Not mankind. The focus is specific and individual, not vague and abstract.

But liberal politics are top-down. Despite the pretense about being driven by caring about people, unique individuals are at the end of the liberal food chain. Liberal politicians make broad pronouncements about our "social" problems and propose social engineering programs that will allegedly fix them.

Candidate John Edwards called poverty "the great moral issue of our time." And his antidote for solving this moral crisis was massive government programs with the modest objective of eradicating poverty in 30 years.

How particular individuals who happen to be poor actually behave, which is where the real moral issues lie, is of marginal interest to this liberal mindset. Their interest is the grand solution from above that will supposedly change the condition of the poor individuals below, who are viewed as innocent bystanders in their own lives.

It never seemed to interest Edwards that Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1965, and more than 40 years and $10 trillion or so later, it accomplished nothing.

When I was on welfare, I'd deal with indifferent bureaucrats who had little interest in me personally. They were just doing a job, no different from any civil servant in the post office or the department of motor vehicles. But behind the faceless bureaucracy was a grand liberal vision. For me, it was all irrelevant. It was just a system to work to get a check.

Ironically, Edwards' marketing of his "moral" crusade was his Two Americas pitch. Get people on board by inspiring envy, chucking the 10th commandment out the window. And use political power to finance the massive programs with other people's money, which can be reasonably viewed as theft.

In an interview last year, Edwards was asked what he thought would most outrage Jesus about American life today. His response: "Our selfishness; ... our focus on our own short-term needs." Not only was this guy, in the midst of an adulterous affair, oblivious to his own hypocrisy. He saw himself as master of the universe, who had to lecture the rest of us about how we behave.

So it shouldn't surprise anyone that during a campaign defined by pronouncements of morality and compassion, Edwards was being immoral and cruel to the real individuals around him and closest to him.

For liberals, individuals are footnotes to their own grand schemes and ambitions.

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.

Believing There Was No Other Choice

*Publisher's note: this personal testimony is being reprinted in light of the upcoming vote in South Dakota on Initiated Measure 11 and the recent statement by the American Psychological Association that abortion does not threaten women's mental health.

By Julie Thomas
Georgia State Leader
Operation Outcry

On a rainy, windy day in March 1978, I was lied to by an abortion facility in Atlanta. I was informed that I was too far along in my pregnancy to have a D and C (dilation and curettage) abortion and that I would have to deliver a dead infant. As I was leaving, having changed my mind about the abortion, I was told that they had made a mistake – they could take care of my “problem” and I could be on my way shortly.

Several weeks later when I called the abortion facility because I was bleeding heavily, I was informed that this was normal.

Women consent to abortion because we are deathly afraid and we lack information, concern, and wise counsel. We are afraid to tell our parents or husbands, afraid we can’t support a child, afraid our marriages will fail, afraid we will have to drop out of school or give up a career, afraid our lives won’t continue as we had planned.

Like many women, I believed the lie that abortion is safe, quick, and will make the problem go away. I believed that I had no other choice. I made the desperate “choice” of abortion as a last resort – not because I really wanted an abortion. My abortion took my daughter’s life, and it took part of mine.

The terms used by an abortionist are very misleading. Words like pregnancy termination, menstrual extraction, products of conception, and blobs of tissues. They only contribute to our confusion. All of these terms dehumanize what is being destroyed to deceive us, and so we can deceive others. Abortion hurts, deceives and destroys!

When going to the dentist to have wisdom teeth pulled, we are told of the possible complications that can occur. I was not told about the possible physical health risks, lifetime of depression, fear, anxiety, grief, guilt, and remorse or shame. I was not told of complications that could cause infertility.

It took me over 24 years to allow God to teach me how to forgive myself. I didn’t feel that I deserved to be forgiven. I deserved a lifetime of punishment. After completing a very intense Bible study, I learned how to start healing. Make no mistake – the road to healing can be long and hard. I made the choice and I paid the price, but Jesus Christ bears my burden now.

After 24 years, I am free. Christ is the answer for grieving women to be free from the past. He is in the business of taking broken lives and making them whole. I now know there is peace and healing for women hurt by abortion. I am now deeply concerned about other women who feel forced to do what I did. I will be “Silent No More.”

Julie Thomas is the State Contact for Georgia. She is a long time employee of a major Airline. She is a single mother of two, a daughter who is a teacher in the Atlanta area and a teenage son. She is a member of Sharon Baptist Church in McDonough, Georgia.

*Reprinted by permission of Operation Outcry.

Obama Transcript on Infanticide Bill

Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online examines the barbarism of Barack Obama who refused to protect children who managed to be born alive after failed attempts to abort them.

Obama apparently felt it was better to simply leave these infants in a broom closet for a few hours until they died, rather than give them the life-sustaining care any newborn would receive.

You would think that even the most hardened pro-abortion advocate would have enough sensitivity to say, "Okay baby. We tried to kill you but you lived anyway. In honor of your dogged determination to live, we'll go ahead and give you the medical care we would any other human being."

And most of the hardened pro-abortionists did have at least that much sensitivity. When a bill went through the U.S. Congress, even pro-aborts like Senator Barbara Boxer supported it.

But not Barack Obama as an Illinois senator when it went through the Illinois legislature.

Obama apparently considered protecting abortionists from potential legal liability--and the inalienable "right" to abortion--more important than even a shred of human decency. He couldn't allow even the slightest recognition that babies are human to stand a chance of undermining the "right" to kill a child in the womb.

With Obama and other pro-abortion extremists like him, the formula is easy: Wanted=Human; Unwanted=Not Human. Very scientific.

McCarthy provides an excerpt from the official record which illustrates Obama's extremely extreme position on this issue

From the April 4, 2002 Illinois senate debate on the infanticide bill:

OBAMA: Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously, this is an issue that we’ve debated extensively both in committee an on the floor so I — you know, I don’t want to belabor it. But I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what’s going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements you’ve set forth?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: First of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the … practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that … an attending physician be brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where … there’s a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child … may be [viable,] … the attending physician would make that determination as to whether that would be the case…. The other one is where the child is actually born alive … in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability.

SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: In the first instance, obviously the physician that is performing the procedure would make the determination. The second situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and then there’s an assessment — an independent assessment of viability by … another physician at the soonest practical … time.

SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.

McCarthy cuts to the chase about what this means:

As Obama spoke these words, he well knew that children were being born alive but precisely not looked after by the abortion doctors whose water the senator was carrying. As Stanek put it, as many as one in five — twenty percent — were left to die. That was what prompted the legislation in the first place.

How can any self-respecting person with a shred of decency support this man for president, or senator...or any position of leadership?

Legitimate School Funding Options

More on yesterday's decision by Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur of Pierre that schools (a government entity) can't use taxpayer money to sue other government entities (the state of South Dakota) for more taxpayer funds.

This from today's Argus Leader:

Attorney General Larry Long, who is defending the state, said he was delighted with the ruling. He did not know when a state audit of schools that contributed to the coalition would occur to determine potential reimbursements. Schools paid $3,500 to $7,500 to initially pay for the lawsuit, Long said.

Long said he would pursue having school board members reimburse school districts and taxpayers for authorizing district money to support the lawsuit. About 90 schools are coalition members, but not all members donated to this cause.

Good. They should be held accountable for misusing and wasting taxpayer money.

Their justification for government suing government for more taxpayer funds? Parents and student's can't afford to fund the lawsuit on their own. Boo hoo.

Parents and students can't afford to bring this kind of challenge, and districts' involvement is logical because they're closest to the issues, he said.

"They could have bake sales to raise money, but it's impossible," King said.

If they can't afford to fund a lawsuit, perhaps they could support what really has the greatest effect on academic success: strong families and parental involvement.

A study released late last year by the Educational Testing Service made an interesting observation:

The E.T.S. researchers took four variables that are beyond the control of schools: The percentage of children living with one parent; the percentage of eighth graders absent from school at least three times a month; the percentage of children 5 or younger whose parents read to them daily, and the percentage of eighth graders who watch five or more hours of TV a day. Using just those four variables, the researchers were able to predict each state’s results on the federal eighth-grade reading test with impressive accuracy.

“Together, these four factors account for about two-thirds of the large differences among states,” the report said. In other words, the states that had the lowest test scores tended to be those that had the highest percentages of children from single-parent families, eighth graders watching lots of TV and eighth graders absent a lot, and the lowest percentages of young children being read to regularly, regardless of what was going on in their schools.

Of course, if supporting and strengthening families is too "judgmental" or would simply require too much sacrifice and hard work, maybe they could suggest cutting some of the bloated administrative expenses in the education system.

Or they can use the only legitimate recourse available to them if they're unhappy with school funding: support and vote for legislative candidates who will throw more money at the schools.

The legislature determines budget appropriations for the schools. If some parents don't believe the $7,651 per student we're spending on kids in South Dakota isn't enough, they should work to elect legislators who will tax them (and everyone else) more and spend more money on schools.

That would be a legitimate action.

But before they do, they should take a look at homeschooling families like mine who spend $1000 or less per student and get better results.

They should also take a look at the District of Columbia, which spends the most in the nation at $14,542 per student and comes in 51st in achievement.

This is an equation that always seems to escape the "smart" educrats: More Money <> Better Results.

Mental Patient Stuck in Chair Dies On Tape

"Mental Patient Stuck in Chair Dies On Tape
Man Left Untended For 22 Hours, Report Says
Posted: 10:43 am EDT August 20, 2008

RALEIGH, N.C. -- A mental patient died after workers at a North Carolina hospital left him in a chair for 22 hours without feeding him or helping him use the bathroom, said federal officials who have threatened to cut off the facility's funding.

The state sent a team Tuesday to help Cherry Hospital in Goldsboro draft new procedures to ensure patients receive proper care.

An investigator's report released Monday found that 50-year-old Steven Sabock died in April after he choked on medication and was left sitting in a chair for close to a day at the facility about 50 miles southeast of Raleigh. Surveillance video showed hospital staff watching television and playing cards just a few feet away.

Federal officials have threatened to cut off funding because of Sabock's death and a report that a physician punched a patient after the teen bit the doctor."

Read the entire report at WNEM.

The cruelty of some is ever amazing. I simply can't get use to the mentality that deems life so worthless and compassion too burdensome to keep on hand.

You Might Be a Liberal...Redux

John Hawkins has another installment of "You might be a liberal if..." at TownHall.com today.

Among today's:

* You blame the oil companies for high gas prices, but believe in doing everything humanly possible to keep them from drilling for more oil.

* You don't see a conflict between "supporting the troops" and trying to insure that they lose the war that they're fighting.

* You're surprised that people don't think you're patriotic just because you were photographed not holding your hand over your heart during the national anthem and made a big deal out of refusing to wear a flag pin.

* You think celebrities are just exercising their right to free speech when they criticize conservatives, but believe that the celebs are having their First Amendment rights abridged if anyone criticizes them for their comments.

* You think we should give condoms to thirteen year-olds because "they're going to do it anyway," but feel that we can get rid of every gun held by criminals in the U.S. simply by making them illegal.

* You think we should give condoms to thirteen year-olds because "they're going to do it anyway," but feel that we can get rid of every gun held by criminals in the U.S. simply by making them illegal.

* You believe that fanatical Muslims who want to fly planes into our skyscrapers aren't a serious threat to the U.S., but Christians are.

* You think we can improve our health care system by putting the same government that brought us FEMA, ICE, Airport Security, and the IRS in charge of it.

Have a great day today in the USA!

NewsBusted Conservative Comedy 8/22/2008

Topics in today's show:

--China gets praise from U.S. media

--Obama accuses McCain of being a celebrity

--New York names highway after Tim Russert,

--Tara Reid dropped from "Dancing with the Stars."

NewsBusted is a comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday.

Obama Caught Lying About Infanticide--Again

Barack Obama has tried many times, many ways to lie his way out of this one, but it just keeps coming back around to the same thing: Obama vehemently defended the practice of letting babies who survived botched abortions simply die.

He knows people find it reprehensible, but it's what he did.

Obama: The Road to Denver

So let it be written...

HHS Moves Forward With Right of Conscience Protections

Despite the howling of liberals for more than a month, the Bush Administration has gone ahead with plans from the Health and Human Services Department to provide greater protection for health care workers in facilities receiving federal dollars to exercise their right of conscience not to provide goods or services that could result in the loss of life of an unborn child.

From Fox News, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt says

"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."

The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.

Abortion rights supporters served notice that they intend to challenge the new rule.

The Christian Medical Association, the nation's largest faith-based association of healthcare professionals, applauded this step today.

CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens said, "These regulations are desperately needed to protect First Amendment rights and implement federal law in what is becoming a jungle of coercion in healthcare. Two of five of our members indicate they have been subjected to pressure and discrimination in the healthcare profession simply because they adhere to life-affirming, patient-protecting standards of medical ethics such as the Hippocratic Oath.

"Clearly, unless we act now to protect the right of healthcare professionals to make standards-based ethical decisions, patients will be penalized with less access to healthcare. If current trends of coercion are allowed to continue, patients will not be able to find physicians who share their life-affirming values."

CMA Senior Vice President Dr. Gene Rudd, an Obstetrician-Gynecologist, said, "Vital issues including abortion, assisted suicide, end of life decisions and other important ethical matters must not be matters of coercion but of conscience."

Those intent on receiving abortions and abortifacients could still seek those goods and services elsewhere, even within that facility if other health care workers were present who didn't have those same moral reservations.

Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure," he said, noting that a patient could go to another provider.

"This regulation is not about contraception," Leavitt added. "It's about abortion and conscience. It is very closely focused on abortion and physician's conscience."

But that will not be good enough for the advocates of complete sexual license. They showed that when a pharmacist in Montana exercised his conscience, they showed it again in Wisconsin, and showed it vehemently in South Dakota during the 2008 legislative session when liberals came up with such a twisted bill to quash pharmacists right of conscience that it actually made the pharmacist sound like an agent of the government.

It isn't about rights for the Left. It isn't about access for the Left. It's about using the brute force of government to force the backwards, superstitious, religious, moralist Christians to capitulate their moral convictions. It's about wiping away all vestiges of moral condemnation for their immoral acts so they can (they hope) soothe their hurting consciences.

Some thought when we began throwing off the objective moral values of our Judeo-Christian foundations that we would inherit more freedom. But when you abandon objective values, then the debate over whose concerns receive the highest regard quickly degenerates into "might makes right."

At this point in the devolution of our civilization, "might makes right" involves whoever can convince the majority to see it their way--or more often, whoever can convince a group of black-robed oligarchs to see it their way.

Eventually, though, even that won't satisfy, and we will likely slip away from the enlightened way of handling differences we've known in this nation for over 200 years, and degenerate into the "corruption, intimidation and violence makes right" that still rules so many nations of the earth.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Just like in the Garden of Eden, we will have traded some simple restrictions and a life of peace, in exchange for a broken promise yielding the yoke of bondage and turmoil.

We never seem to learn.

Reaction Over Alpha Center Ad

KELO has an update on the Alpha Center ad which caused such apoplexia on the Left yesterday and today.

Seems it isn't something that the Sioux Falls School District has direct control over.

The Sioux Falls School District says it has no control over the directory because it is a publication of The Shopping News.

And the company's lawyer told KELOLAND News Thursday that The Shopping News is just providing an avenue for advertisers to reach customers, and this whole issue is about "sour grapes" by people who stand on the other side of the abortion issue.

Some parents don't like the ad:

Sioux Falls School District parent Roda Weil says, "I see that as wrong. I say just leave the kids alone and let them get education."

Like get an education on proper oral and anal sex techniques, as some educational materials provide?

Like getting an education on how to have a meeting about runing a pro-abortion campaign by South Dakota Campaign for UnHealthy Families?

The Alpha Center will at least point young people toward sexual responsibility and preserving human life--far more than can be said for Planned Parenthood and the UnHealthy Families gang.

As I said yesterday, let's quit pretending there are no rights and no wrongs, but only preferences.

There is definitely right and definitely wrong, and encouraging sexual license and killing innocent children in the womb is definitely wrong.

Obama Gets By With a Little Help From His Friends

I'd better get this one out there before the thought police sanitize it from the internet.

This ad from the American Issues Project is making waves on the Left. It seems it may be illegal because it's produced by an incorporated 501c(4), and under that stupid McCain-Feingold (aka the Incumbent Protection Act) assault on the First Amendment, that isn't allowed.

Some folks see no problem with unions shaking down workers to spend their money on political activities the workers may not even support, or with government suing itself with taxpayer money to get more taxpayer money, but oh my, this kind of free speech is abominable.

Anyway, here it is. It points out some important facts about the kind of people Barack Obama calls friends. Can you say, "Domestic terrorist Bill Ayers?" I knew you could.

Obama Knows All About Houses

Judge Scolds Schools Over Taxpayer-Funded Lawsuit for More Taxpayer Funds

KELO reports that it took Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur of Pierre to tell the educrats filing a lawsuit against the state of South Dakota using taxpayer funds for more taxpayer funds what average, common-sense South Dakotans already knew:

school districts do not have legal standing to seek a court judgment on the constitutionality of the state's school funding system. She says the districts also cannot pay money to a coalition to support the lawsuit.

Maybe if these educrats spent more time trying to be smart and less time trying to feather their nests, they might learn something.

If they did, they might learn to quit chasing their tail and do something productive--like educate our children, as they're ostensibly being paid to do.

Don't hold your breath, though, because the KELO piece says a lawyer for the tail-chasers says Judge Wilbur's ruling will be appealed.

HT to South Dakota War College.

Homosexual Rights Trump Religious Rights

Lesbians in California are attempting to use government power to force doctors to artificially inseminate them, regardless of the doctors' moral or religious objections.

From CNS News:

Justices on the California Supreme Court unanimously held Monday that Drs. Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton, who work at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., could not use the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of religion and free speech to be exempt from a lawsuit filed by Guadalupe Benitez, a lesbian.

In the unanimous decision, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote: “Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation? Our answer is no.”

If these women want a child this badly, they should seek children in the legitimate manner: marry a man and have him impregnate them.

Just because they don't like the correct way of doing things doesn't mean society, doctors or morality should bend to accommodate their rebelliousness.

The Hippocratic oath says to do no harm. This would do harm to children intentionally born into a situation where they are robbed of a father. This action would cause these doctors to violate a medical tenet that goes back thousands of years and transcends any one religious belief.

These doctors also have a moral conviction about the natural way for creating a family, and for the welfare of the resulting children themselves.

These homosexual women are entitled to have any nutty idea that enters their head, but they are not entitled to force others to accommodate their nutty ideas--especially when what they are demanding is contrary to the good health and welfare of the resulting children.

This would also involve using government power to force a person (the doctors) to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

Given that this is California, there is no doubt that these women could easily find a doctor as morally bankrupt as themselves who would perform the procedure. But it isn't about that; it's about their agenda to undermine societal morality and force others to accommodate their perverted agenda. Homosexual activists don't simply want tolerance; they demand complete acceptance and legitimacy from all corners of society.

Our society once recognized that individuals have the right to believe whatever they want, and to do whatever they want so long as that action doesn't infringe on the rights and welfare of another.

That wisdom has been thrown out the window in favor of an authoritarian system which says that, if one can enlist the power of government, they can force someone else to serve them and meet their desires. This philosophy is based on the transient morality of the moment and whoever can successfully get the power of government on its side at the moment.

Ultimately, such a philosophy which ignores transcendent moral values leaves everyone in jeopardy. You might win your battle in this area today, but someone else may come after you tomorrow...and if they can successfully convince government power to back them, then you're toast.

Better that we should return to the Judeo-Christian worldview of transcendent moral values that our great nation was founded on.

Homophobia is Normal, Natural and Healthy

Andrew Tallman has a very thoughtful piece at TownHall.com today. It makes so much sense that I'm a little depressed that I didn't think of it first.

Tallman says that while he was raised to be a Christian who takes the Bible seriously, he's been trying to learn and become more open minded. In doing so, he's learned something from homosexual activists:

For as long as I can remember, homosexuals have been explaining why gay people have no choice about their orientation. And it finally dawned on me that their arguments explain why being anti-gay is also not a choice but an innate predisposition beyond our power to restrain. This led me to embrace my convictions and stop trying in vain to repress who I am.

Tallman points out that homosexuals tell us that they can't help who they love, so they must follow through on that passion. Well...

But passions can be both for and against. And, just as gay love is a passion which is impossible to control, I now know that my passionate anti-gayness must also be impossible to control. I might wish I could change, but it’s hopeless. My judgmental tendency draws me as irresistibly as their same-sex affection.

In reaching this point, Tallman also realizes that it would be wrong for him to deny his homophobic passions--even if he was able to do so:

So it must be truly unhealthy to try repressing something as innate as opposition to homosexuality.

Tallman further points out that, in our politically correct world where anyone who disapproves of homosexual behavior is an outcast, a heathen, a person of pity and scorn, that no one would actually choose to live such a life of ridicule and rejection. Therefore homophobia must be innate and not a choice.

Tallman has come the realization that homophobia, like homosexuality, is not a choice.

I admit that Tallman's argument is compelling, but change isn't easy. I will have to grapple with this, but acceptance and change may be just around the corner for ole Bob Ellis.

I may be on the verge of coming out of the closet and accepting my homophobia. I'm sure I will receive full tolerance and celebration from the tolerant homosexual activists.

Just the thought of it is so liberating!

'There's No Debate' Dykstra Slogan Catching Like Wildfire

Well, the Democrat Party mouthpiece Badlands Blue may not like Joel Dykstra's new slogan "There's no debating it," (over Senator Tim Johnson's refusal to engage in debates this election season), but apparently it's catchy.

Not only is it showing up on cool t-shirts as Sibby Online points out, apparently the Rapid City Weekly News has caught the fever.

This was the front page of today's edition:


Wow! I thought it was a good play on Senator Johnson's reticence to face his challenger in a debate, but I never thought it would catch on so well!

Police to Law Abiding Citizens: Hand Over Your Guns

WorldNetDaily highlights a disturbing development in Oklahoma where police sent letters to about 60 gun owners, asking them to "voluntarily" submit their weapons to the police for ballistics testing in connection with a murder.

My response (as a former cop) would have been, "Not without a warrant."

Others, however, were more compliant.

From the Tulsa World:

Jessica Brown, spokeswoman for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, said more than 60 letters were sent out to registered owners of .40-caliber handguns, asking them to voluntarily submit their weapons for testing on Saturday and Sunday at the Okfuskee County Courthouse at Okemah.

Brown said about 40 of those owners showed up with their guns, which were test fired outside the courthouse.

What about the ones who didn't comply like good little subjects? The Tulsa World says:

The other 15 or so gun owners who did not show up will be checked by the OSBI to see why they didn't volunteer for the test firings.

So the ones who wouldn't play along will get the "bright light" treatment.

When there is no probable cause, this is a disturbing hostility toward gun rights and law abiding citizens.

This behavior on the part of the authorities conveys an attitude of government strong-arm, assumption-of-guilt that is highly offensive in a nation built on principles of individual rights.

It took a U.S. Supreme Court decision recently to restore Second Amendment rights to the people of the District of Columbia after 32 years.

And then, D.C. lawmakers thumbed their noses at the Supreme Court--and gun owners--by quickly passing new restrictions that essentially make the SCOTUS victory worthless.

From the Hawaii Reporter:

The emergency legislation will allow handguns to be kept in the home if they are used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition. However, the new law still requires that handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks—unless there is a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm” in the home.

Well, that rules out handguns that have 15-round clips like I used to carry. And if someone is breaking through your window, do you really want to take the time to re-assemble your disassembled handgun, or look around for the key to your trigger lock and then fumble to get the trigger lock off?

Are you going to tell the invader: "I am in compliance with D.C. firearms restrictions. Please halt until I am able to make my weapon ready for use."

The Founders would be aghast if they saw how anti-gun (and anti-freedom) things have become in our nation.

Lien and Herseth Sandlin: Time to Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way

As Sibby Online points out, the Chris Lien/Stephanie Herseth Sandlin debate at Dakotafest yesterday saw some agreement...and some important differences.

While both U.S. House of Representatives candidates said we need to do more drilling offshore, drill in ANWR, build more nuclear power plants, and build the proposed Hyperion refinery at Elk Point, the Argus Leader reports they differ on how to best accomplish proactive energy policy in Washington:

The two differed in their take on a House proposal that attempts to limit speculation in oil markets and use oil company royalties to develop wind power and other renewable energy forms.

Lien berated such a comprehensive proposal.

"You put it all in one piece of legislation and nothing gets done," he said.

Herseth Sandlin, who has supported the proposal, said Lien's stance shows a lack of experience.

"Anyone who thinks you can focus on one issue doesn't understand how the process works," she said. "Major pieces of legislation tend to be comprehensive proposals because of the needs across the country."

She's probably right about how the process currently works. But I think that's part of what Lien is getting at: that process isn't working.

The current process involves loading up a bill with a lot of things that often results in several things: (1) conflicting priorities that hinders passage of the most important, (2) unrelated items that makes the primary bill cumbersome and often unattractive, (3) extra items that provide cover or justification for either a "yes" or "no" vote, depending on what the representative needs to placate voters back home, (3) a lot of extra garbage that contributes to the wasteful spending on bloated government projects.

As the heated discussion over earmarks has shown in the past couple of years, "business as usual" in Washington desperately needs to change. Not only is it producing massive amounts of wasted taxpayer dollars on junk that few people outside a congressman's district care about, it is bogging down the whole process (which should have the goal of accomplishing something) and reducing accountability to the people.

We need relatively simple legislation that targets a specific issue, doesn't get sidetracked, and provides a clear opportunity to support or oppose something. This would make the choice more clear for the representative...and more clear for the voters back home who should decide whether to "rehire" the representative based on how well the representative is representing their priorities in Washington.

It would also help remove the veil of secrecy behind which so much wasteful spending (we have a $3 trillion budget) goes unnoticed. And if there isn't time to deal with so much of that because of the need to vote on the specific, targeted legislation that deals with real issues...great!

So I think Herseth Sandlin inadvertently admitted one of the best reasons she should be replaced by Chris Lien: the current process isn't working, and she is obviously invested in that broken process and unwilling to work to fix it.

I knew a squadron back in my Air Force days which had the motto "Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

If Herseth Sandlin is unwilling to take the lead in fixing the mess that is Washington, or follow those who are willing to fight for change, then she needs to get out of the way for those like Chris Lien who will.

Now That's the Ticket: McCain and Romney

By Marie Jon'

We will soon know who the Democrat and Republican vice-presidential candidates will be. Who will Sen. John McCain pick to stand beside him? Although to some it is doubtful, will Mitt Romney be his choice?

Common sense almost dictates that "the candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are most feverishly denouncing. That is Mitt Romney by a landslide." — Ann Coulter

Evangelical Christians have been aware of the dirge sung by those who, for whatever reason, wish to exclude Romney from consideration for the VP post on the Republican ticket. Very well-crafted words are being used to try to induce Evangelicals to withhold their votes from this very qualified man because of his (Mormon) faith.

Political pundits have broken down some of these misconceptions. Romney's conservatism is accepted among Evangelicals. His experiences as a businessman are appealing in today's weak economy. His years of successfully working within the global economy demonstrate his knowledge of how markets work. He would strengthen the ticket in light of McCain's perceived weakness on economic issues.

"I'd Pick Romney' as McCain's Running Mate." — Karl Rove

Romney has allies within the Republican Party. Still it is disquieting to hear questions that should have been put to rest once again being regurgitated by Romney detractors. While running for the nomination, Romney gave an outstanding speech that clearly addressed matters of faith and his stance on moral issues. He awed us with his heartfelt departure speech, and left graciously, putting his country first. In short, he is an extremely attractive candidate.

Apparently some Evangelical pastors won't cease their whisperings to the press. We get it. They are promoting Huckabee over Romney for the vice-presidency. It matters not how their opinions could dissuade voters from McCain.

If President Bush was practically tarred and feathered by progressive Democrats for his Christian beliefs, how might an outspoken and often comical character like Michael Huckabee be perceived if he became the VP nominee? Only naivete would facilitate one believing that the media would allow Huckabee's verbal blunders to go unnoticed. They embraced him once, but if he were to play a pivotal role as McCain's running mate, the gloves would come off.

During a speech in Louisville, Kentucky, Huckabee joked about a loud bang that was heard off-stage "That was Barack Obama," Huckabee quipped, "He Just tripped off a chair. He was getting ready to speak. Somebody aimed a gun at him and him...he dove for the floor." Watch the Video

Evidently, the sabotaging of a God-fearing Mormon is more important to the aforementioned Evangelical pastors than a win for the Republican Party in the fall. They overlook that there will be Supreme Court positions up for grabs during the next four years.

If we want to maintain civility during these late stages of this important campaign, it is incumbent upon Mr. Huckabee's surrogates to tone down the rhetoric regarding the selection of a VP candidate. What we don't need is a continual drone of discontent in the event Romney is chosen.

It should be noted, that when people choose not to vote, they put their nation in jeopardy. Those conservatives and Evangelicals who threaten to withhold their votes if they don't get their way are being infantile. We will never regain what will be lost in the Supreme Court if the Democrats take the White House.

Excerpt from The Washington Times: Evangelicals warn against Romney on ticket

"Prominent evangelical leaders are warning Sen. John McCain against picking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate, saying their troops will abandon the Republican ticket on Election Day if that happens.

"They say Mr. Romney lacks trust on issues such as outlawing abortion and opposing same-sex marriage and because he is a Mormon. Opposition is particularly powerful among those who supported former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Republican presidential primaries earlier this year.

"Other well-placed Christian conservatives say that although many evangelical leaders could accept and work for a McCain-Romney ticket, Mr. Huckabee's supporters tend to be 'rabid' in their views against Mr. Romney because of his faith: They do not regard Mormonism as a Christian denomination." Full Article

Where the rubber meets the road, Evangelical Christians have more in common with those of the Mormon faith than we could ever have with the "religious left" who think nothing of the slaughtering of unborn babies as well as champion the gay agenda.

"I am wholeheartedly convinced that Mitt Romney can be trusted to uphold the values and principles most important to me as a political conservative and an evangelical Christian. Again, I am not being paid, and I am not interested in a job in a Romney Administration (I would not accept one even if offered, as I'm still raising three teenagers). Neither is my public relations firm involved in any way. I am involved because I believe the stakes are high, perhaps higher than ever before in my life." — Talk show host Hugh Hewitt

Obama has chosen to align himself with an aberrant cult that stands in stark contrast with the words of The Almighty. Thus, important moral issues have become sullied, such as the sanctity of life; when life begins seems to be too complicated for them to grasp. The issue of a one-man one-woman marriage also confounds them. Such congregants would rather have their ears tickled than allow the truth to enter their hearts.

Christians should not be complacent about the issues of the world. We were told to "occupy until he comes." (Luke 19:13) We must stay engaged so we can vote with intelligence.

As a Judeo-Christian nation, let us read His Word, and with Holy boldness go forth in faith. God has given us the intelligence and discernment to choose the right men to lead this great and blessed nation.

----------*----------

Marie Jon' is a political/religious-based writer and founder of http://www.drawingclose.org/ — a sister website to RenewAmerica. Marie extends her hand of welcome; visit DrawingClose and receive your free gift of salvation by taking an online Bible study. Join Christians from all over the world by becoming a free member of GO Fellowship. The website is a nondenominational gathering of believers.

Marie's writings have appeared on many sites, including The New Media Journal, ChronWatch, and ABCNews, to name a few. She is a regular columnist for CapitolHillCoffeeHouse, The Daley Times Post, RenewAmerica, The Conservative Voice, Newsbull, GreatAmericanJournal.com, Radiofreewesthartford.com, Conservativecrusader.com, RightSideNews.com and WesternFrontAmerica.com.

Marie brings a refreshing and spirited point of view that is reflected in her writings, as well as genuine and spiritual insights regarding God and his teachings as they pertain to our modern society. Marie is a nurse, a lay student of the Bible, and a patriot. She is an advocate for American troops serving abroad, as well as the Blue and Gold Star Mothers of America and their families. Marie has appeared as a guest with political talk show host Bruce Elliott on WBAL-1090 AM (Saturdays 5AM-9AM EST).

© Copyright 2008 by Marie Jon'

McCain Likely to Leave Pro-Life Plank Alone

The ABC News Political Radar blog says John McCain is backing off his previous plans to undermine the pro-life plank of the Republican platform:

McCain’s plan to take a hands-off approach with the abortion platform stands in stark contrast with the position he took during his first presidential run.

Back in 2000, McCain clashed with then-Gov. George W. Bush over his unwillingness to change platform language that called for a human life amendment banning all abortions.

Here is a video of McCain and George W. Bush arguing over the plank in 2000.

Of course, it helped that people quickly made their opinion known when it was floated recently that McCain might choose a pro-abortion VP.

And other pro-life leaders have made it clear what the consequences of undermining the pro-life plank would mean:

"If he were to change the party platform," to account for exceptions such as rape, incest or risk to the mother's life, "I think that would be political suicide," Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, told ABC News in May. "I think he would be aborting his own campaign because that is such a critical issue to so many Republican voters and the Republican brand is already in trouble."

Let's hope (but not take for granted) that McCain has learned something here.

Video: Analysis of Saddleback Civil Forum

From the Wall Street Journal, featuring Daniel Henninger who writes the Wonder Land column.

Human Law Must Rest its Authority on Divine Law

American Minute from William J. Federer

He was one of six founding fathers to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. President Washington appointed him to the Supreme Court. Born in Scotland, he was an active delegate at the Constitutional Convention, speaking 168 times. His name was James Wilson and he died AUGUST 21, 1798.

The first law professor of the University of Pennsylvania, James Wilson wrote in his Lectures on Law, 1789-91: "Law...communicated to us by reason and conscience...has been called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed...But it should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed...flows from the same divine source; it is the law of God."

James Wilson continued: "Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine."

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania records in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 1824: "The late Judge James Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia...for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions...In his Course of Lectures (3d Vol. of his Works, 122), he states that...'Christianity is part of the common-law.'"

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.

The Pain of My Abortion Caused Me to Hate Myself

*Publisher's note: this personal testimony is being reprinted in light of the upcoming vote in South Dakota on Initiated Measure 11 and the recent statement by the American Psychological Association that abortion does not threaten women's mental health.

By Karen Hartman
Arizona State Leader
Operation Outcry

Silence was my companion for nearly 14 years until I found the courage to face the truth. Flashbacks to the day of the abortion filled my heart and mind. I was in a daze. I was not a scared teenager but an ignorant 40-year old married adult. I did not want to be there, but I rationalized that it must okay because it was legal. Fear overtook reason. I was told that I might die in childbirth. How could we afford a child with one in college, and what about retirement? All the reasons were selfish.

At the abortion facility, I cried tears that came from deep within and that would not cease. I was asked, “Why are you crying?” My sobbing kept me from answering, but I wondered why they didn’t know. “Is it the protesters?” The police?” “The needle?” Each time I nodded “no.” Finally, they asked, “Is it the termination?” They never used the word “abortion.” I nodded “yes.” They replied, “We are here to help you,” but they never asked me, "Are you sure you want to go through with this?”

Later, I realized the abortion did not solve anything; rather it created new and long-lasting problems that will always be with me. The pain of my abortion caused me to hate myself. I felt alone, crying inside, wanting to seek help but not knowing where to find it. I was angry at myself, the media, the government, the church, and the relatives who had fed me lies that abortion was a safe and easy answer to an unplanned pregnancy. The worst was that I believed a lie and allowed the unthinkable, the most unnatural thing for a mother to do. I allowed my child to be ripped from the protection of my womb. As I saw my baby’s remains being carried away in a cold metal container, I realized with horror it was too late. I could never reverse this “choice.”

Abortion will be with me forever. I am still reaping the consequences of this decision. My children suffered as well. My college-age daughter had nightmares after I told her. I, too, suffered nightmares. My second daughter found out without my knowledge several years later when she was in college. She was angry and asked with tears streaming down her cheeks, “Why did you kill my brother?” We, of course, did not know the sex of the child, but I think of him as a son and named him Adam James. The pain of explaining an abortion to a daughter is indescribable.

I have a third daughter who is now 13, born four years after my abortion to fill my “empty arms.” Some call her an “atonement child.” I call her a gift from God. Abortion not only kills a child, it hurts the mother, the family, and in turn hurts our society. For this reason, I can no longer be silent. I must be a voice for the voiceless. Please help me to drown out the lies by speaking the truth.

Karen is a volunteer at Wickenburg Pregnancy Resource Center and president of Wickenburg Right To Life. She is a mother of three daughters and has three grandchildren. She enjoys horse riding in the desert that surrounds her home with her border collie who alerts her to rattlesnakes. She is a member of Calvary Baptist Church.

*Reprinted by permission of Operation Outcry.

Fireproof the Movie Coming to Rapid City

I'm told that there will be an advanced screening of Fireproof on Friday Aug. 22 at 7:00 pm at Rapid Valley Baptist Church in Rapid City.

Fireproof is a Christian movie made by the same people as the very successful "Facing the Giants" movie.

This is from a press release about the movie:

"Fireproof" mirrors the problems of many marriages, in this case through a firefighter whose high-stress job spills into his home life. Hitting on pain points common to married life—from indifference to insults to emotional affairs and internet porn—the story opens with a couple's disintegration.

"Most movies are about relationships that lead to marriage," Michael Catt, of Sherwood Pictures said. "'Fireproof' picks up seven years into a marriage headed for divorce. And the question is: Can a cold marriage revive? Why stay together?"

Given that firefighters have one of the nation's highest divorce rates, "Fireproof" also has the support of many firefighters and related organizations. John White, former head of the Los Angeles Fire Department's Search & Rescue Team, is urging firefighters across the country to see it.

As I understand it, this advanced showing is primarily for people may be interested in promoting the film to their churches and other organizations, and bringing it to a Rapid City theater.

We Christians love to bellyache about the rot that passes for Hollywood entertainment these days. Movies like Fireproof are a chance for us to literally put our money where our mouth is and do something about it.

Here's a map. Go to the screening if you can.

Below is a trailer for the movie.

"Fireproof doesn't mean that a fire will never come, but that when it comes you'll be able to withstand it."

You are Getting Green...Veeery Green

If the American Psychological Association hadn't already tipped their hand that they care more about promoting a liberal agenda than examining the facts, they've definitely done so now.

As you may have heard, last week the APA came out with the outrageous statement that abortion isn't hazardous to women's mental health. This was soon refuted by a statement from 100 scientist, medical and mental health professionals, as well as a statement from APA member Dr. Rachel M. MacNair who called the report a "politically-motivated exercise" which ignored evidence that didn't fit their pro-abortion agenda.

Now the newsletter from WeGetIt.org, a group that takes a Bible-based approach to environmental stewardship, draws attention to a USA Today article last week which says the APA wants to put the head-shrink on you to make you be more "green":

Armed with new research into what makes some people environmentally conscious and others less so, the 148,000-member American Psychological Association is stepping up efforts to foster a broader sense of eco-sensitivity that the group believes will translate into more public action to protect the planet.

"We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do," says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. "We know what messages will work and what will not."

According to the piece, they're pretty worried about this silly "truth" and "fact" and "contrary evidence" stuff slipping into news coverage and getting people off the approved mantra of greenness:

By editing CNN and PBS news stories so that some saw a skeptic included in the report, others saw a story in which the skeptic was edited out and another group saw no video, Krosnick found that adding 45 seconds of a skeptic to one news story caused 11% of Americans to shift their opinions about the scientific consensus. Rather than 58% believing a perceived scientific agreement, inclusion of the skeptic caused the perceived amount of agreement to drop to 47%.

American Psychological Association leaders say they want to launch a national initiative specifically targeting behavior changes, including developing media messages that will help people reduce their carbon footprint and pay more attention to ways they can conserve. They want to work with other organizations and enlist congressional support to help fund the effort.

Imagine that: just 45 seconds' coverage of a different explanation is enough to lead 11% of believers to doubt Al Gore's faerie tale.

They seem to believe all this contrary stuff such as solar activity, natural cycles, flawed global warming data, etc. is too confusing for people. How shameful that some skeptics (like a list of 31,000 scientists, among others) want to disturb people's peaceful dreams of global catastrophe with something as icky as reality.

So pushing a liberal pro-abortion agenda wasn't enough for the APA; they had to find another liberal cause to promote: radical environmentalism.

As for the APA's credibility, if they have any left, it seems to be headed for the door.

The Liberal Dog Chases Its Tail

Liberals just don't get it.

Bob Schwartz over at Politics and Hypocrisy doesn't understand why rational people consider the school funding lawsuit utter nonsense while Initiated Measure 11 is perfectly legitimate.

One might as well ask why lemons are sour while red apples are sweet. One has no bearing on or legitimate taste comparison to the other.


The school funding lawsuit involves South Dakota schools (which are government entities) suing the state of South Dakota (which is a government entity) for more taxpayer funding...and using taxpayer funding to finance the lawsuit. Put another way, government is using taxpayer funds to sue itself for more taxpayer funding.

You know what that looks like, right?

And these are supposed to be the "smart people" in charge of our children's education?

Besides, as I pointed out this morning, I homeschool on a fraction of the public school budget and get tremendously better results. The educrats are using bad math: More Money <> Better Results.

Initiated Measure 11, on the other hand, is a citizen-initiated petition measure to protect the lives of 98% of the unborn in South Dakota. If the people of South Dakota vote to approve the measure in November, it will become law in South Dakota.

That is, until some pro-abortion group like Planned Parenthood sues to stop it as they did with South Dakota's informed consent law.

If and when that happens, will it be a government entity suing a government entity for more taxpayer funds?

The last time I checked, Planned Parenthood wasn't a government entity. While it's true that they receive about $337 million in taxpayer funding, that still doesn't make them a government entity.

But I suppose if you want to assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that Planned Parenthood is a government entity, then I suppose it would indeed be just as stupid as the school funding lawsuit.

But it wouldn't be the supporters of Initiated Measure 11 initiating the tail-chasing activity: it would be the Planned Parenthood bunch suing to protect their access to a supply of blood money.

Of course, Planned Parenthood could do the responsible thing and not subject the taxpayers of South Dakota to the expense of a lawsuit...but will they? I won't hold my breath, but it really will be Planned Parenthood's "choice," won't it?

Maybe the liberals behind the school funding lawsuit (as well as the ones who would likely be behind a suit against IM 11) should just forgo the expensive lawsuits so we can have more money on hand to teach critical and logical thinking in our public education system.

With what passes for logic on the Left, society is in bad need of such training...