Monday, June 30, 2008

Freedom of sexuality

Should Christians who voice opposition to homosexual behavior be in danger of arrest?
Should a man be allowed to use a woman’s locker if he perceives himself to be female? Should a private business owner, let’s say, a photographer, be fined or run out of business if it would violate his religious convictions to photograph a gay wedding?

In testimony before the Colorado House Judiciary Committee regarding the rights of homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered and transsexual individuals, the executive director of the ACLU said,

"One may practice one's religion in private; however, once a religious person
comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how the expression of
their religion impacts others," (WorldNetDaily).

I wonder why Ms. ACLU didn’t say, “One may practice their sexuality in private; however, there are limitations of how people can express their sexuality in public.”

After all, we have a constitutional right to freedom of religion (religion that can only be practiced in private is not freedom of religion). There is no constitutional right to the public display of one’s sexuality or perceived gender.

In true Orwellian fashion, the Left is systematically undermining freedom of religion, and out of thin air they are creating an even higher right, a right that trumps both freedom of speech and freedom of religion: The freedom of sexuality.

And Barack Obama supports it.

Kiss what!?

Sounds to me like the Democrats have something of a pothole on their road to unity.

Qur’an, sura 32

Robert Spencer’s commentary on the Qur’an, sura 32 is now available on Hot Air.

Friday, June 27, 2008

An appeal to Evangelical Christians

I’m appealing only to Evangelical Christians today. It seems to me that…

Those who think America is to blame for the world’s evil

Those who place the earth or animals on the same level of importance as people

Those who want to force Israel to make endless concessions to the terrorists sworn to kill them

Those who think conservative Christians are as bad as Muslim fundamentalists

Those who support the use of tax-payers’ money for anti-Christian hate “art” like a crucifix dipped in urine or the virgin Mary spattered with elephant dung

Those who fought to “enable” drug addicts by providing them with fresh needles

Those who support illegal behavior like mayors convicted of drug use Congresswomen who strike Capital Hill policemen, or Congressmen who hide illegally obtained money in their freezer

Those who oppose freedom of speech when they deem such speech to be politically incorrect

Those who oppose freedom of speech by disrupting speakers with whom they disagree

Those who fought to remove the Ten Commandments from courthouses

Those who fought to remove manger scenes from city squares and parks

Those who fought to keep Gideon Bibles from being distributed near public schools (even with parental consent)

Those who fought to remove Jesus from public school Christmas programs

Those who use the legal system to keep students from hearing that the world may have come into existence by design

Those who ran a Catholic adoption agency out of business simply because the agency wouldn’t adopt to homosexual couples

Those who fight against the Boy Scout’s right to use parks and other public places

Those who fight against student’s free speech right to bear witness to their faith at graduation ceremonies

Those who fight against military chaplains’ rights to pray “in Jesus’ name”

Those who fight to remove crosses from government parks and cemeteries

Those who fight to remove all signs of our nation’s Christian heritage from the public square and public schools, but are absolutely silent when tax money is used to support Islam in public schools

Those who fight to allow cross-dressing men to use your wives’ and daughters’ restrooms

Those who fight to make Christian preaching on homosexuality a hate crime, but turn a blind eye to the egregious anti-Christian hate-mongering by various homosexual groups

Those who use the force of law to compel religious organizations to hire people who behave in ways that their religion holds to be immoral

Those who use the force of law to compel private business owners to provide services that violate their religious convictions

Those who fight to force the country to accept same-sex marriage even above the objections of voters

Those who oppose regulation even of hardcore pornography like child pornography and the pornographic depiction of the torture of women

Those who oppose blocking pornography from public library computers that are accessible to children

Those who fight against the teaching of abstinence but promote teaching children how to use condoms

Those who support teaching public school children that dangerous, same-sex relationships are perfectly acceptable behavior, and that all who disagree are bigots

Those who oppose homeschooling or vouchers in their attempt keep your children from escaping those public schools that are educationally sub-standard, or exhibit anti-Christian bigotry/indoctrination, or are drug infested, or are just plain violent

Those who fight for the “right” to kill unborn babies—even unborn babies who are partially born…

Those who support these issues are almost always Democrats! Of course, not all Democrats agree with all of the points above, but if you asked people in an audience to raise their hand if they support any one of these issues, there is little doubt that the overwhelming majority of “those” in each case would be Democrats!

I’m not suggesting that the Republican Party is the solution to our problems. Evangelicals know that the underlying problem is spiritual and the only real solution would be something like another Great Awakening.

But in our national descent into decadence, Barack Obama and the Democrats will lead us into a freefall whereas John McCain and the Republicans are at least something of a parachute to slow the decline…or, if you prefer, salt to slow the decay (Matthew 5:13).

That being the case, I am at a loss to understand how Evangelical Christians can vote Democrat with a clear conscience. If it is because you think Democrats are more socially compassionate or environmentally minded, then come over from the dark side and help make the Republicans more compassionate and environmentally minded. But please, please, don’t give your support to a party that has been taken over by so many who are, at their core, both immoral and anti- Christian.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

The Inartful Dodger

Earnedmedia provides a very helpful timeline of Barack Obama’s position(s) on gun control. Excerpts appear below but the Earnedmedia timeline provides explanation and documentation:

SEPTEMBER 1996: In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The "Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns."

2004: Barack Obama Voted Against "Letting People Use A Self-Defense Argument If Charged With Violating Local Handgun Bans."

NOVEMBER 2007: The Chicago Tribune Reports That The Obama Campaign Says
Barack Obama "Believes The D.C. Handgun Law Is Constitutional."

FEBRUARY 2008: During An Interview, Barack Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: "…You said in Idaho recently -- I'm quoting here -- 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns,' but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Obama: "Right."

Harris: "And you've said that it's constitutional. How can you reconcile those two different positions?" Obama: "...I think it is important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people, law-abiding citizens, use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have violence on the streets that is a result of illegal handgun use. And so, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets ..."

But Barack Obama was supporting a law that made all handguns illegal so when he says there is nothing wrong with a community taking "illegal" handguns off the streets, he apparently measn all handguns.

In other words, Barack Obama, the Constitutional scholar, acknowledges that the Constitution gives the right for individuals to bear arms, but he said that the Washington DC law banning handguns was constitutional, but he supports the Supreme Court ruling that says the Washington DC law was unconstitutional. If Barack Obama was running for President of Alice’s “Wonderland,” I’d say he was very qualified.

When confronted with the Chicago tribune article which “quoted the Obama campaign as saying, “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional” the Obama compain said that statement was “inartful” (ABC News). Inartful?

I really can’t understand why anyone believes anything Obama says anymore.

Breaking: Supreme Court and 2nd ammendment

According to the Associated Press: "The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history." Read about it in USA Today.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Obama's flip-flops

Carol Platt Liebau and David Limbaugh provide a list of all the Barack Obama flip-flops so far in this campaign. Suddenly it dawned on my why so many people support Obama.

If you oppose union contrabutions to candidates, so does Obama but if you support union contrabutions to candidates, so does Obama.

If you want to end the embargo against Cuba, so does Obama but if you want to keep the embargo against Cuba, so does Obama.

If you oppose a crackdown on businesses hiring illegal aliens, so does Obama but if you support such a crackdown, so does Obama.

If you support decriminalizing marijuana so does Obama but if you oppose decriminalizing marijuana so does Obama

If you support NAFTA so does Obama but if you oppose NAFTA so does Obama

If you think Iran poses a serious threat to America so does Obama but if you think Iran is not a serious threat so does Obama

Obama has apparently held all of these positions at various times. After awhile you begin to get the impression that Barack Obama will say or promise almost anything to anyone just to get elected. Why can't people see that?

Where was Obama born?

I guess there has been a kind of internet battle over whether Barack Obama was really born in the United States until the Daily Kos produced a copy of his birth certificate.

Now, according to Israelinsider, the copy posted by the Daily Kos is most definately a forgery (no surprise there)! Not only that, but the "Obama campaign...continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document -- notably in very low resolution -- on its 'Fight the Smears' website...However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama's birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the "Certification of Live Birth."

I'm not sure I understand this controversy. Since the Constitution requires that the President of the United State be born in the U.S., surely any candidate for President must, at some point, produce legal documentation (not just a copy) proving that they were born in the U.S. don't they?

Supreme Court and child rape

John McCain reacted today on the Supreme Court ruling that saved the life of a brutal child rapist:
"As a father, I believe there is no more sacred responsibility in American society than that of protecting the innocence of our children. I have spent over twenty-five years in Congress fighting for stronger criminal sentences for those who exploit and harm our children. Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime. That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing" (Townhall).

No word yet from Barack Obama

UPDATE: Even Barack Obama condemns this horrendous decision! (WSJ, Hat tip: Alcamadus).

Women and depression

Why do women suffer depression at twice the rate of men? Dennis Prager offers some provocative answers.

New York Times and treason

Ignoring requests by the CIA, the New York Times published the name of the interrogator of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed. In other words, an American newspaper just placed someone's life and family in danger....someone who was just doing his job keeping us safe.

Whose side is the New York Times on? Won't this discourage others who are fighting our war against terror? I mean, if you worked as an interrogator or investigator for the FBI, CIA or Homeland Security, wouldn't you be hesitant to do your job knowing that the New York Times may put your life and the lives of your family in danger by publishing your name?

If this isn't treason, what is?

No death penalty for child rape

By a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court just struck down a Louisiana law that allowed for the death penalty in the case of child rape. Arguing against the Louisiana law, Justice Kennedy wrote, "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child" (New York Times).

I agree. The death penalty is much too merciful for someone who has forcibly raped a child; but the Constitution doesn't allow for stoning.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin provides a detailed description of what happened to the little girl who was raped in this case (warning: it is graphic and sickening. It is hard to read without crying). It is almost beyond understanding (disgusting, actually) how justice Kennedy could hear what happened to this little girl, and then write about "Evolving standards of decency" and "respect for the dignity of the person" in reference to his defense of the one who committed this atrocity!

It's the baby boomers' fault!

I just read an ad on Facebook that has the picture of a poutty little kid with a caption reading "Up yours Baby Boomers."

The caption went on to say, "The U.S. has 53 trillion worth of promises it can't pay for. With 78 million baby boomers retiring, who will be stuck with the IOU's?"

I think the ad makes a great point. Us baby boomers have screwed up our kids' economic future and left them holding the bag! But let's be fair. It wasn't all baby boomers. It was the ones who voted for all the Democratic entitlement programs!

So before you younger generation critics get too self-righteous, just look around you at how many of your own peers are voting for Barack Obama who will saddle your kids with so many entitlements it will make social security look cheap!

The death of free speech at the U.N.

In FrontPage today, Robert Spencer argues that "Free Speech dies at the U.N.:

The war against free speech is advancing rapidly: Associated Press reported Thursday that “Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council.”Council President Doru-Romulus Costea explained that religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense…This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” Henceforth only religious scholars would be permitted to broach them.

“While Costea’s ban applies to all religions,” AP explained, “it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.” The ban came after a heated session on Monday, when the representative of the Association for World Education (AWE), in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, denounced female genital mutilation, the penalty of stoning for adultery and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law.

And yet, millions of Americans still support dumping millions of American tax dollars into the U.N. cesspool!

Crucifying children

From the Ottawacitizen via Dhimmi Watch:

Muslim militants are crucifying children to terrorize their Christian parents into fleeing Iraq, a parliamentary committee studying the persecution of religious minorities heard yesterday.

Since the war began in 2003, about 12 children, many as young as 10, have been kidnapped and killed, then nailed to makeshift crosses near their homes to terrify and torment their parents.

One infant was snatched, decapitated, burned and left on his mother's doorstep, the
committee was told.

Words can hardly express my shock and outrage at the depths of depravity to which Muslim militants will descend. Are these monsters even human? Why is there not more outrage by moderate Muslims over the hijacking of their "peaceful" religion?

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Baby stabbed to death

According to a report in the Christian Newswire:
A murder investigation has been opened involving Shelley Sella, a California abortionist employed by George Tiller, who is reported to have intentionally stabbed to death an infant born alive during an abortion at Tiller's Women's Health Care Services abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas.
I would think she will be charged with murder. The irony is that if she had just stabbed the baby to death a few seconds earlier while he or she was still in the birth canal, no one would give it a second thought.

And Barack Obama and the Democrats would support it.

Little Alex won't go

Have you seen the new MoveOn.Org ad for Barack Obama? The with the young mother and her child where she says,

“Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him.”
This is probably going to be a very effective ad but when you analyze it, as William Kristol does in his New York Times article, the ad turns out to be almost as dispicable as MoveOn's general Betray-us ad.

Kristol makes the following points:

First, “John McCain isn’t counting on Alex to serve in Iraq, because little Alex will only be 9 years old when President McCain leaves office after two terms.”

Second, When McCain said U.S. troops might be in Iraq for a hundred years he qualified that explaining, “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed...”

Frankly, I disagree with McCain’s position here. I don’t want U.S. bases in Iraq like we have bases in Germany or Japan, not even if they want us there! But the point is that it is extremely dishonest for the Left in general, and this ad in particular, to imply that McCain wants to be fighting insurgents in Iraq for a hundred years.

Third, we do not have a draft and McCain doesn't want to start one so little Alex wouldn’t have to join the military if his mommy didn’t want him to. This is good for little Alex's mommy because as Kristol pointed out in a TV interview this morning, even Barack Obama has suggested increasing the size of our military!

Finally, Kristol quotes a soldier’s response to this ad:
“Does that mean that she wants other people’s sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world? ... Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone’s son, somewhere.”
Kristol then comments,
“The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past. And the sole responsibility of others.”
I think Kristol nails it! The ad is essentially a pack of lies, packaged in sentimental emotionalism. Unfortunately, the mindset Kristol describes is characteristic of so many on the Left. Kristol says it much better than my summary. Please read his entire article here.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Obama and the communists

From LGF:
I think we have the jawdropper of the day, as the official web site of a candidate for president of the United States contains a blog posted by a follower of World Can’t Wait, linking to an article by the chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party.
And we know that Obama campaign administrators are monitoring the site. Notice that it’s been posted since May 26th.
See the screen shot and read the rest at LGF.

Obama and the lobbyists

Ed Morrissey writes:
In his missive to supporters explaining why he was foregoing public financing for the general election, Barack Obama accused the Republicans of being “fueled” by lobbyists and special interests. “Fueled” is an interesting choice of words, because as the New York Times reports, Obama’s up to his ears in the ethanol industry and has
surrounded himself with lobbyists from it. At a time when energy policy is more critical than ever, Obama has hitched his wagon to big corporate lobbyists from Archer Daniels Midland, among other agricultural players:

More deception from Obama. Read the rest on Hot Air.

Atheists believe in God?

According to a new Pew survey, 21% of those who claimed to be atheists, also said they believe in god and 10% pray at least once a week (Hot Air).

Sounds to me like some very confused atheists.

Homeschoolers good for cleaning toilets?

Homescholers may want to check out this Christian Newswire article for an attack on and defense of home schooling.

Qur'an, sura 30

Robert Spencer's commentary on the Qur'an, sura 30 is available on Hot Air.

A government big enough....

Barack Obama's website promises an amazing array of extraordinarily expensive social programs. Obama supporters would do well to remember this famous quote:

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have" (Gerald Ford, Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974).

Government takeover of oil companies

According to an e-mail I received from the Ameican Family Association:
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) has called for the federal government to seize control of oil companies. In a Washington Examiner editorial piece, Rep. Hinchey said, “We [the government] should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) took the same approach, saying to oil industry executives: “Guess what this liberal (referring to herself) will be about? This liberal will be all about socializing - um, uh … will be about … basically … taking over, and the government running all of your companies.”
It's a bit like having Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro in our own Congress! (and did you notice which party they below to?)

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Tad Skylar Agoglia

Read about Tad Skylar Agoglia and his "First Response Team of America." An American hero(Hat tip: Jason I).

"Fast Eddie" Obama

In the Herald Tribune, David Brooks has Obama pegged! Please read the entire article when you get a chance, but in the mean time, excerpts appear below: (Hat tip: Don B.)
This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator.
Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Barack said he could no more disown the Reverend Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Reverend Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don't do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don't go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue….He's spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw
public financing under the truck....And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama's got more money now.

And Fast Eddie didn't just sell out the primary cause of his life.

He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama…made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa's final steps to sainthood.

The media and the activists won't care (they were interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money).

Obama and the newspapers

So what do the newspapers think of Obama’s flop-flop on campaign financing? The following are excerpts from Politico:

Friday morning, scathing editorials in many top broadsheets characterized Obama’s move as a self-interested flip-flop, dismissed his efforts to cast it as a principled stand and charged that Obama wasn’t living up to the reformer image around which he has crafted his political identity.

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial board called the decision “as disappointing as it is disingenuous,” while The Boston Globe’s board wrote that it “deals a body blow …to his own reputation as a reform candidate.” And The Baltimore Sun’s editorial board called it “a major disappointment for those struggling to restrain the pernicious influence of special interests in American politics.”

The Washington Post opined that Obama’s “effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.” And USA Today, which also did not endorse any candidates, said Obama put “expediency over principle,” was “disingenuous about his reasons for opting out of public financing” and proved he’s not a “real reformer.”
Barack Obama has proven that his promises to change the way Washington works are just politically expedient lies. We can only hope that this will shake the main-stream-media out of their pro-Obama slumbers and that they will finally begin to look at him without their rose colored glasses.

Freedom of speech and churches

Churches have passively given up their freedom of speech and freedom of religion when it comes to addressing the pressing political issues of our time.

I certainly don't think pastor's should turn their worship services into political forums, but pastor's should not have to be afraid of having his church taxed simply because he opposes a candidate who is fighting against Christian values. I, therefore, completely support this "Pulpit Initiative" from the Alliance Defence Fund:

Historically, churches have emphatically, and with great passion, spoken Scriptural truth from the pulpit about government and culture. Historians have stated that America owes its independence in great degree to the moral force of the pulpit. Pastors have proclaimed Scriptural truth throughout history on great moral issues such as slavery, women’s suffrage, child labor and prostitution. Pastors have also spoken from the pulpit with great frequency for and against various candidates for government office.

All that changed in 1954 with the passage of the “Johnson amendment” which restricted the right of churches and pastors to speak Scriptural truth about candidates for office. The Johnson amendment was proposed by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson, and it changed the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit churches and other non-profit organizations from supporting or opposing a candidate for office. After the Johnson amendment passed, churches faceda choice of either continuing their tradition of speaking out or silencing themselves in order to retain their church’s tax exemption. The Internal Revenue Service, in conjunction with radical organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have used the Johnson amendment to create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear for any church that dares to speak Scriptural truth about candidates for office or issues.

It is time for the intimidation and threats to end. Churches and pastors have a constitutional right to speak freely and truthfully from the pulpit – even on candidates and voting – without fearing loss of their tax exemption.We are seeking pastors to stand with us and once again reclaim their constitutional right to speak the Truth.

Learn more about how you can stand with us.

More Obama lies

According to Barack Obama, he broke his promises to be bound by public campaign funding laws because, "John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."

But according to FactCheck.Org, "those sources account for less than 1.7 percent of McCain's money" and about 1.1 percent of the money donated to the Republican National Committee ("In 2004, PACs provided about 10 percent of the DNC's total fundraising and only about 1 percent of the RNC's total...").

It is dishonest for Obama to tell the public that McCain and the RNC are "fueled" by lobbyists and special interests when these sources make up less than 2% of their income.

The issue that is really behind Obama's rejection of public funding of his campaign is that accepting public funding comes with limitations: "both candidates would have been limited to spending $84.1 million, all of it from taxpayers."

Apparently 84 million is not enough for Obama (or he doesn't think he can beat McCain on a fair playing field) so when he found out that he can make much more than 84.1 million dollars by rececting the public funding, Obama broke all his promises to accept only public funding.

I thought Barack Obama was going to change the way Washingon works. Was that just another lie?

Friday, June 20, 2008

Obama lies again

Barack Obama recently broke his promise about public financing of his election. Why did he lie? (Maybe I should say, why did he lie again)?
Obama did it for the money, not for the high-minded ideals he claimed to cherish as he threw them under the bus. The Post notes that Obama specifically told their editorial board that he would accept public financing if the Republican nominee did the same, and repeated that pledge on a number of occasions. Only after it became clear that he could outraise the Republicans did Obama change his mind, and it wasn’t because of 527s, attack ads, or any of the other excuses Obama gave for breaking his word.

Read the whole story at Hot Air. If Obama will lie through his teeth now whenever it is to his advantage, what makes Obama supporters so sure he will keep all those very expensive promises he makes on his website? Doesn’t this make you wonder if Obama is just like his Democratic colleagues in Congress who deliberately and knowingly lied about pulling troops out of Iraq just to get elected?

Another abortion tragedy

According to Christian Newswire:

Abortionist Hamid Sheikh has had his medical license suspended and his Lexington, Kentucky, abortion mill closed after the state's medical board revealed evidence of fraud, filthy conditions, and illegal abortions that led one reporter to describe Sheikh's clinic as a "hellish abortion operation."
This Kentucky case is not an isolated incident. Similar tragedies have occurred, for example, in California, and New Jersey.

A 2001 study showed that women who have abortions had five times more “hospital admissions for psychiatric problems” compared with women who had no abortions. In another study of 600,000 women showed that those who had abortions had a “six-fold increase in suicides” (RC).

Back in the pre-Roe v. Wade days when abortion was illegal, abortion advocates made a huge deal of the supposed back alley abortions performed with coat hangers (even though, as I understand it, their estimates of how many of these procedures were actually done were vastly overstated if not outright fabricated). The rallying cry was concern over the health of women.

Where is all the concern over women’s health now? Maybe the movers and shakers in the pro-abortion world weren’t nearly as concerned about the health of women as they were about other issues, say, making a lot of money or—following the agenda of Planned Parenthood's racist founder by cutting down on the birth rate of black babies!

Who knows, but for an industry that claimed to concerned about women’s health, there seems to be a lot of blatant disregard for women’s health! Not only is the national media shockingly silent about such tragedies, the abortion industry has Barack Obama’s whole-hearted support.

UPDATE: This story just in from LifeSite News via OneNewsNow just supports my post above:
ANN ARBOR, MI - A study conducted at the University of Michigan and published in The Journal of Immunology has indicated that "off-label use" of the controversial abortion drugs Mifepristone (Mifeprex) and Misoprostol (Cytotec), collectively called RU-486, may be linked to the death of at least eight women.

A press release from the American Life League states that Planned Parenthood's recommendation to use the abortion-causing drug Misoprostol vaginally rather than orally, contrary to FDA recommendations, has led to fatal infections directly causing the deaths of four of the women. Until 2006, Planned Parenthood told women to take the drugs Misoprostol and Mifepristone (RU 486) vaginally. This occurred despite FDA protocol instructing women to take the drugs orally. When five patients died from the drug combination, Planned Parenthood quietly changed the policy to fall in line with FDA protocol.

UPDATE: Another story just in from California:

Nine women came forward with stories of botched abortions received at
Bugarin's hand. Many women suffered from incomplete abortions and were forced to
return to have their abortions done again. One woman was hospitalized three
times, and birthed a live baby that died three hours later (Christian NewsWire).

I ask again: Where are all those who were supposedly so concerned over women's health when they argued against the danger of back alley abortions?

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Hell on earth

When we're done in Iraq, can we finally do something about the hell on earth created by the Islamic government in Sudan where kidnapping, slavery, torture, rape and murder are a way of life? See, for example, this CNN article.

Obama's cabinet

If you liked the post on Obama's National Security Advisor, you love this post from Michelle Malkin. Warning: Only Obama supporters with a sense of humor should go click on the link :-)

Pastor Stephen Boissoin responds

Yesterday I posted on Pastor Steve Boissoin and his trouble with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Pastor Boissoin responded to my post and has convinced me that he does not in any way advocate violence against gays and that he has been railroaded by this Canadian Human Rights Commission which is a serious threat to freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Canada. Pastor Boissoin, I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding you and the reports about you, and for adding to your anxiety with my post.

I've posted Pastor Boissoin's initial response below but you can read all of his responses by referring to yesterday's post. Pastor Boissoin wrote:

Friend,You have your facts totally wrong and you obviously haven't researched the story and due to such are guilty of the same type of irresponsibilty you accuse me of.Here is some information to consider.

1. The boy that was assaulted never went to the police.

2. There was no investigation and I never even heard a peep about the supposed assault from the police who I was involved with on almost a daily basis. I heard about it, like everyone else when it was in the newspaper over two weeks later.

3. The Publisher of the Red Deer Advocate informed me that the boy came to them about the story.

Think about this for a minute, while a heated gay debate is going on in my community a gay teen goes to the paper and claims he was beaten for being gay. He claims he is fearful but still allows the newspaper to publish his story (he provides no witnesses) and he does NOT go to the police. Think: he is ok with his story and his picture being in the paper, admittedly afraid but will not go to the police. There is simply no way to verify if this is even a valid story. This teen did not appear at the hearing as a witness...he did not ask a representative to appear on his behalf...he did not forward a written statement yet the complainant against me was allowed to use this unsubstantiated story as 'evidence.'

At the hearing there was a witness for the complainant, while a participant on a employability skills grant at our facility, she THOUGHT she heard me say that I knew who did it and speculated that I allowed them to continue participating in our program. Before God Almighty, this was absolutely false. I have never known who did it nor am I sure it ever happened.

The facts:1. I did not EVER know who committed the supposed assault and still do not know today. Nor do the police as my understanding is there was no ivestigation.

2. The witness may have overheard me guessing because afterall we were a at-risk
youth ministry and troubled street teens attended.

3. I was part of the inception of the RCMP's Restorative Justice. To accuse me of such a thing is absolutely ridiculous. Colleagues that know me laugh is disbelief.

4. I had a very good reputation with my community's social care organizations, Probation Officers, the Police (even judges), lawyers and was a voluteer for the RCMP. Most important, I had very good relationships with teens, gay or straight and every single one of them that knows me, knows that I would protect them from harm, regardless of their sexual orientation. Here is what the gay teens and young adults that I worked with think of me

5. I gave my life saving to at-risk youth outreach. I have performed teen memorial services and had over 25 teens live with and straight. I gave my whole heart to youth work. This accusation is pure garbage. Friend, don't just throw something up on your BLOG for the sake of appearing to be in the know about current events. You are way off on this one. The Human Rights Commission hearing was a farce and things that were accepted by them would suffer a different result in a real court of
law.....which is exactly where we are taking this.I encourage you to read the information on the following link submit this to you with the hope
that you will be honourable and care for the TRUTH.Stephen Boissoin

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Pastor Stephen Boissoin on trial

A Canadian pastor named Stephen Boissoin has been on trial for violating Canada’s Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (2000).

According to most Right wing blogs and news sources I’ve read, the pastor’s crime was that he sent a letter opposing homosexuality to his local newspaper. And even though Canada’s Human Rights Act specifically says, "Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject," the pastor has spent the last four years having to defend himself in court.

This is one of those cases where I would normally be ranting and raving about the horrible abuse of a pastor’s right to express his faith.

Unfortunately, the right wing sources I’ve read are not telling the whole story (I know my left wing readers are going to take delight in rubbing this one in). Anyway, the pastor’s letter included the phrase, “It is time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness…” (emphasis mine).

The pastor should have qualified his statement by saying “…legal and non-violent steps.” I would like to think this was just an oversight on his part but the facts of the case lead me to think otherwise.

Not long after the pastor’s letter was published, some kid shattered another kid’s cheek bone saying, “you’re a faggot, right?” As it turns out, the perpetrator was someone who often frequented the pastor’s youth center.

Now this wouldn’t necessarily mean anything except that in this case, according to court testimony, when the pastor found out about the assault, not only did he take no action to suspend the perpetrator from the youth center (the normal procedure when violence occurs), but the pastor was reported (under oath) to have said, “God called him to be active with his beliefs.”

Excuse me? God called some punk to smack someone in the face just because he was gay?! If the pastor really said this, something is seriously wrong with this pastor’s theology!

This pastor should have:

1) explained to the offender that the Bible never allows us to take the law into our own hands by persecuting someone for their sexual orientation or sexual behavior,

2) explained that we are to show Christ’s love even to those who behave in ways we think are sinful,

3) suggested that the offender needs to seek forgiveness and possibly even make restitution to the one he assaulted and

4) suspended the offender in accordance with youth center policy.

I'm afraid I have to break ranks with some of my fellow conservatives on this one. If the court records are accurate, I think this pastor's statements above were unbiblical and irresponsible.

Obama: National Security Advisor

You've got to read about Barack Obama's potential national security advisor!

Muslims and Hindus

Radical Muslims don't just hate Christians and Jews, but apparently, Hindus too. "A mob of nearly 7000 Muslims attacked a group of Hindu pilgrims in West Bengal, a state in Eastern India..." The Muslims were throwing "gas cylinders and Molotov cocktails at the pilgrims, burning down the camp building and trapping 180 men, women and children, along with fifteen police officers, within the confines of the compound" (Jihad Watch).

So why do we never hear of protests and demonstrations by peaceful Muslims who are sick and tired of the radicals who supposedly pervert Islam? Don't they care? Is the media ignoring them? Are they afraid to speak up? Or are their numbers too small?

Obama and terrorism

Please take time to read Ed Morrissey's short but excellent article on how Obama would handle terrorism. The bottom line is this:
Besides that, though, Obama didn’t understand the question, and even his longer answer shows that. Williams asked him what he would do if we had incontrovertible evidence that AQ had conducted the attack. Obama avoided that by saying we’d have to do an investigation to be really, really, super-sure that AQ was responsible, and only then “take potentially some action” to dismantle the network. Otherwise, he’d mostly just talk — to the American people, to our allies, and anyone else who might feel alienated by any action we took to defend ourselves from further attack.

The RNC really should have clipped the entire answer. Never once in this answer does Obama pledge to take action against terrorists who would have killed thousands of Americans once again in terrorist attacks. It’s far more important for Obama to talk than take action.

Drilling in ANWR

For years Democrats have kept us from drilling for oil in ANWR in Alaska. With the rise of oil prices, ANWR has been in the news again. What I’ve learned is that ANWR is pretty much a dark, frozen wasteland most of the year, and even in the brief times that it thaws out in the summer it soon becomes a mosquito infested swamp. Not exactly a vacation wonderland.

Of course, Democrats will argue that drilling up there will affect the migratory patters of caribou. Someone pointed out, however, that after drilling in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, the number of caribou in the area has actually risen significantly.

Finally, if ANWR was reduced to the size of the front page of the average newspaper, the actual proposed drilling area would only be the size of a single letter on that page! Not a paragraph or a phrase or a word. The drilling area would only be the size of a single letter!

Now I don’t know how much of this is true, but I do know one thing. If the Democrats had not kept us from drilling for oil in ANWR for all these years, just maybe we wouldn’t be paying over $4.00 for gasoline today.

Barack Obama and the Democrats still don’t get it. Why would you want to return them to Congress? And why would Democrats want to return people like this to Congress?

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Hollywood hate speech

I was flipping channels on TV last night and happened upon an old movie (1990’s) called “The Rapture.” It was already about half over but the last half was about a naive, but sincere and peaceful evangelical Christian woman who eventually became convinced that God was calling her to go out to the desert to await his return.

When God didn’t come back she eventually became convinced that God wanted her to shoot her little girl to death to send her to heaven (the woman then intended to commit suicide but decided not to when she determined that suicide victims could not go to heaven).

Stricken by remorse, she then began to hate God for deceiving her and for commanding her to kill her little girl. The movie pretty much left the impression that you should really watch out for these sincere, kind and peaceful, evangelical Christians--especially those who are vocal about their faith--because underneath they are actually severe mental cases who just may deconstruct into insanity.

Then I thought about the last movie I saw portraying a peaceful Muslim, or a kind homosexual who deliberately shot their little girl in the head….oh wait, not only have I never seen such a movie. I’ve never even heard of such a movie! A movie like that would be universally condemned as vitriolic hate speech! Not only would every media outlet in the country rant against it, but it would likely even be condemned by members of Congress!

Yet Hollywood has produced a consistent stream of anti-Christian bigotry. And while Americans decry every other kind of prejudice, bigotry and hate speech, when it comes to the anti-Christian variety they just kind of yawn. In fact, any Christian who dares to complain about it may even be attacked as overly sensitive, self-pitying, or even as being against free speech.

Sunni vs. Shiite in Pakistan

The Associated Press reported yesterday that a bomb exploded in a Shiite Mosque in northwest Pakistan killing at least four people as worshipers left evening prayers. The area has a history of violence between the Sunni majority and the Shiite minority. Jihad Watch [sarcastically] cites this story with the headline “But remember; it’s all about Israel and American foreign policy.”

Contrary to what Obama’s former pastor and other liberals seem to believe, it is really not about American foreign policy (which has made Middle East Muslim nations rich). It is about the fact that Islam has been an incredibly violent and imperialistic religion since the days of Muhammad.

In some countries, anyone, including other Muslims, who don’t fall into line with what one sect believes, may be in danger of punishment, torture and—as we just saw in Pakistan, even death.


There is a book called, Mission Handbook: U.S. and Canadian Protestant Ministries Overseas 2007-2009 which is over 600 pages long and contains the listings of hundreds and hundreds of Christian missionary organizations. For hundreds of years, Christian missionaries have gone into all the world not only preaching the gospel, but providing medical care, food, housing, and education to people of every race, religion, and virtually every nation on the face of the earth—often at great personal risk to themselves.

So I was just wondering: can anyone think of any Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim missions that have provided food, medical care and education to people who are not of their own nation or religion?

Qur'an sura 29

Robert Spencer's commentary on the Qur'an, sura 29 is available on Hot Air.

Monday, June 16, 2008

"How Life Began"

I just finished watching a fascinating program on the History Channel called “How Life Began.” According to this program, the most ancient rocks on earth show that the origin of life occurred “almost the same geological moment” that earth was capable of sustaining life.

And yet, the simplest living organisms are more complicated than the computer I am typing on! So how is it that billions of microscopic life forms, each more complicated than my computer, just happened (all by themselves!) to emerge from dead chemicals--not after billions of years of evolution, but at almost the same geological moment that earth was capable of sustaining life?

The program never gave a satisfactory explanation to that question and frankly, I just don’t have enough faith to believe it happened all by itself.

Mortgage bailout

It now sounds like Countrywide was not just giving "sweetheart deals" to former Barack Obama advisor, Jim Johnson, but to some congresspeople as well. Did that have anything to do with Congress's eagerness to bail out companies like Countrywide? Read the story at Hot Air.

Funny, I don't recall hearing the "most ethical congress in history" calling for an investigation.

Obama: "we'll bring a gun"

No one takes Obama literally when he said, "if they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun." Obama was simply borrowing a phrase from The Untouchables movie to make the point that if Republicans play rough, his campaign will play rougher. If they play dirty, he'll play dirtier.

His own words pretty much expose the lie that he intends to change the way Washington works.

"we'll bring a gun"

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun."

Barack Obama made this comment in a recent speach. If Ann Coulter had said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun," the mainline media would be cooking her goose for days. But because the mainline media hates Ann Coulter but loves Barack Obama, my guess is that the fallout will be nill.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

R. Kelly or Muslim jihadists?

Michelle Malkin asks:
Which will get more media attention:

A) R&B singer R. Kelly’s acquittal on child pornography charges; or

B) The conviction of three Muslim jihadis in Toledo, Ohio on charges of plotting to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq?

Google News item count for “R. Kelly:” 7,000-plus.
Google News item count for “Toledo terrorists guilty:” 84.

Something is terribly wrong with our media's priorities. Please read Michelle's blog for the rest of the story.

Obama, Islam and honesty

Robert Spencer argues that evidence about Obama's Muslim past raise questions about his honesty. Read about it in Jihad Watch.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Pornography and the Ninth Circut Court

The Ninth Circuit Court in California is often viewed as the most liberal district court in the country. Some of us have long suspected something other than objective evaluation of the evidence was going on. Now, according to a June 12 e-mail from the Family Research Council:
…the Los Angeles…discovered that Judge Alex Kozinski [Chief Justice of the Ninth Circuit Court], who was presiding over a lower court obscenity case, had something in common with the suit's defendant. They both have an affinity for hard-core pornography. In a revelation that is shocking the legal community, Kozinski posted on a personal website nauseating photos of bestiality, striptease, transsexuals, and other images too graphic to describe…

As of this morning, he had yet to recuse himself from the current case involving sexual fetish videos. Meanwhile, Kozinski insists that the content of his site would not qualify as "obscenity," a stance he's taken repeatedly in his official capacity. "When he learned that there were filters banning pornography and other materials from computers in the court's Pasadena offices, he led a successful effort to have the filters removed," notes the Times. In other words, Kozinski not only defended the
rights of people to sell revolting--and potentially illegal--smut, but he advocated that his staff be able to view this content at work! "This is a funny joke," the judge said about the controversy. But few Americans are laughing. They, like FRC, believe that Kozinski is ill-equipped to try an obscenity case when he clearly does not understand the definition of obscene. We call for his recusal in this case and a reexamination of his fitness as chief of one of the most important courts in the entire nation.

Islam in public schools

According to the San Francisco Chronicle (via Jihad Watch):
Islamists have taken what's come to be known as the "soft jihad" into America's classrooms and children in K-12 are the first casualties. Whether it is textbooks, curriculum, classroom exercises, film screenings, speakers or teacher training, public education in America is under assault.

Capitalizing on the post-9/11 demand for Arabic instruction, some public, charter and
voucher-funded private schools are inappropriately using taxpayer dollars to implement a religious curriculum. They are also bringing in outside speakers with Islamist ties or sympathies. As a result, not only are children receiving a biased education, but possible violations of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause abound.
What follows in the article are examples of specific cases.

It absolutely astounds me how organizations like the ACLU, People of the American Way and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State--which have been so active in their anti-religion war in American schools--have been so silent as Islam steadily creeps in. Apparently these organizations were not so much anti-religion as they were anti-Christian.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Freedom of Choice Act

According to CNSNews:
Following a July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Obama was asked what he would do at the federal level, not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees he might pick "are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?""Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said. "That's the first thing I'd do." (See video)
The Freedom of Choice Acts (FOCA) is an Act "To prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes."

That sounds good, doesn't it? After all who wants government interfering in our rights? And since this Act would ensure the right of a woman to have her baby partially delivered before scrambling its brains, why stop here?

Why not also protect the woman's right to kill her newborn baby also? I mean, if a woman changes her mind and decides that her newborn is holding her back from career or education opportunities, why should government interfere in her right to chose to terminate her newborn's life?

If a woman's job situation should change and her infant has become a financial burden on the family, how dare the government interfere with her choice to end the infant's life!

And if the woman's new boyfriend thinks her toddler cries too much and that is causing excessive tension in the relationship, shouldn't she have the freedom of choice to end the toddler's life also?

Fortunately in America, we still think these scenarios are over the top, but infanticide has been accepted in some cultures so why is it murder to kill a newborn baby but not murder to kill an unborn or even partially born baby?

Some anti-abortion supporters of Obama rationalize their support of Obama by saying that they are not one-issue voters. I sympathize with that view. But some issues are more important than others. My question for anti-abortion supporters of Obama would be, how would you feel about a pre-Civil War voter who voted for a pro-slavery candidate saying that they are not a "one-issue" voter?

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

America, an imperial power

Congressman Keith Ellison recently made a speech in which he called America an imperial power! (LGF). That’s an amazing charge considering the fact that historically, Ellison’s Muslim religion has been one of the most imperialistic powers in the history of the world.

It started with Muhammad himself who “took part personally in twenty-seven” raids and “actually fought in nine engagements” (Ibn Ishaq, 659-660) and whose last command was that all other religions be extinguished from Arabia.

After Muhammad’s death in AD 632, his disciples followed his example as a warrior, and obeyed his commands to fight the “infidels.” By 635 Muslim armies conquered Damascus. By 636 they had subdued large parts of Iraq. They conquered Jerusalem in 638, Caesarea in 641, Armenia and Egypt in 643. By 709 they had conquered all of North Africa. By 711 they had conquered Spain and were moving into France.

Later Muslim armies invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Look at the territory covered between Spain and India on your world map—It makes Europe look small!

The peoples conquered by the Muslims were given three choices: 1) convert to Islam, 2) accept the humiliating rules and taxes of dhimmi status, or 3) be slaughtered. As recently as the early 1900’s, 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered in jihad and in more recent times literally millions of others have died at the hands of jihadists (See Spencer, Robert. Onward Muslim Soldiers. Washington DC : Regnery, 2003, 168-169, 174-175, 180-184).

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

The world AIDS pandemic

The threat of a worldwide AIDS pandemic is over. So says Kevin de Cock, the head of the World Health Organization’s department of HIV/AIDS. According to The Independent:

Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.
Many believe that there never was a widespread heterosexual threat and that the myth of heterosexual AIDS was just a big lie in order to get a disproportionate amount of money when compared to the leading causes of death.

While the the estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 14,627 in 2006, the number of deaths from Heart disease = 652,091, from cancer = 559,312, from stroke = 143,579, from diabetes = 75,119, from Alzheimer's = 71,599 (Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2005, Table C).

According to the National Institutes of Health, in 2007 the N.I.H. spent 2.1 billion for heart disease but 2.9 billion for HIV/AIDS.

2.1 billion for Heart disease that kills 650,091 per year.
2.9 billion for HIV/AIDS that kills 14,627 per year.

Looks to me like this is much more about power, politics and political correctness than it is about compassion for people.

Yet another Obama scandal

According to Ed Morrissey:
Apparently, what’s good for the goose has no relation to the gander in the Barack Obama campaign. After David Axelrod shrieked about Mark Penn’s connection to Countrywide during the primaries, the Obama campaign seems rather undisturbed about their own connections to the subprime lender. Despite a Wall Street Journal article detailing millions of dollars received by Jim Johnson in sweetheart loans from Countrywide, Obama has publicly declared he will stand by Johnson:
Read the entire article and watch the video on HotAir.

Government-run health care

Read "Canada deports cancer patient to save costs" by Ed Morrissey.

Morrissey's conclusion: "Government-run health care rations treatment. It sets limits and conditions on access to health care, and generates irrational solutions such as this. And only the power of the government could have resulted in the deportation of a low-wage recruit into that system because she needed the very services she supported."

Citizens McCain and Obama

Hmmm, the Left made a big deal out of whether John McCain was a U.S. citizen (and rightly so), but now Barack Obama refuses to release his own birth certificate. Why is that? See Michelle Malkin.

Tax funded hate

According to CNSNews:
Federal taxpayers are subsidizing a college in New York whose art school is currently displaying works that include a drawing of a man with a crucifix coming out of his rectum, a drawing of a man with a rosary coming out of his rectum, and rosaries decorated with penises.Over the last eight years, at least $4.6 million in federal tax dollars have been provided to the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, which is displaying the controversial artworks. Some of the money has come in the form of grants from the National Endowment for the Arts.

If any public school spends a dime in a way that looks like it is promoting Christianity, the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, or People for the American Way are all over it like flies on cowpies! Where are they when a tax subsidized college degrades and vomits hate speach against Christianity? Isn't that a separation of church and state issue as well?

Sex and youth

As youth sexual behaviors continue to be on the rise,
Opponents to abstinence education like Dr. Laura Berman blame the increase in sexual activity on, "kids learning skewed messages about what sex is," and "they are confused about what virginity means," and "I think part of the problem honestly is the abstinence only model."
That’s interesting since “the programs promoting sex outside-of-marriage out-fund abstinence-until-marriage programs by a rate of nearly $12 to $1.” Read the entire article at


According to an article in FrontPage:
THIS WEEK YET AGAIN PROVED THE PARTYOF DEFEAT'S KING WEARS NO CLOTHES. On Wednesday, a jury found Lieutenant Andrew Grayson "not guilty" of covering up the (un)massacre at Haditha. The 27-year-old had been accused of multiple counts of making false official statements and one count of attempting to deceive by making false statements. A charge of "obstruction of justice" had been thrown out the day before.More than simply another exoneration of those accused of wrongdoing in Haditha – the sixth of eight accused – this verdict will go a long way to redefining Haditha and refuting those who insist on slurring "baby-killer" Marines and the United States herself.
Haditha is just one example of many on the Left, like John Murtha, who seem so eager to condemn America even before all the facts are known. It is precisely this eagerness that causes the Right to question patriotism of some on the Left! Please read the entire article.

Monday, June 09, 2008

Thomas Sowell and the election

Thomas Sowell has a remarkable way of cutting through all the debris and focusing on what really matters in the upcoming election. If you don’t read anything else today, please read his short but outstanding article in Townhall .

(Is it too late to draft Thomas Sowell for President?)

Gasoline hits $4.00 per gallon

This morning the news reported that the national average for a gallon of gasoline is now over $4.00 per gallon. Although I would rely in Chuck Norris for instruction on karate rather than the economy, he expresses my frustration well in his recent article, "Congress, get off your gas, and drill!" Norris says,
As oil and gas prices skyrocket, Congress continues to play the blame game. In April 2006, with the Democrats poised to take over Congress with Nancy Pelosi at the helm, she released a statement saying, "With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress." She followed that with the commitment, "Democrats have a common sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging." So has
the Democrat's commonsense plan worked? Average gas prices were about $2.50
a gallon at the time. Now they're $4 a gallon and rising. Some crack-down plan.

While the liberals scream about our wars over foreign oil, they are the ones who have continued our dependence on foreign oil in the first place! According to Norris:

Though we have more oil in the shale of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming than combined in the Middle East (800 billion barrels), liberals and environmentalists have made it illegal to touch it.

It's illegal to drill in northern Alaska (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), or off the coasts of Florida or California.

Oil fields in Colorado are being shut down. We won't develop shale oil fields in the western states

It's illegal to explore in the Atlantic.

It's illegal to explore in the Pacific

It's illegal to explore in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico

We're not receiving any more leases to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, while China, Venezuela and Cuba are.

We haven't built an oil refinery in 25 years and reduced in half those we have

There's enough natural gas beneath America (406 trillion cube feet) to heat every home in America for the next 150 years, but we can't tap it all.

We have the largest supply of coal in the world, but it's Germany who is planning to build 27 coal-fired electrical plants by 2020.

You might want to think about this the next time you fill up your gas tank, and especially when you vote in November.

Qur'an sura 28

Robert Spencer's commentary on the Qur'an, sura 28, is now available on Hot Air.

Sunday, June 08, 2008

Liberals and dishonesty

According to an excellent article by Peter Schweizer in the Examiner, there appears to be a strong correlation between liberals and dishonesty. According to numerous surveys and studies:

“57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said it was OK to cheat on your taxes, “compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.”

86% of conservatives said it was “morally wrong’ to cheat Uncle Sam compared with only 68 percent of liberals.

“Those who were very liberal were much more likely to say it was all right to get welfare benefits you didn’t deserve.”

Those on the left were “much more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that you know are stolen.”

“Those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it”

“Political liberals were two and a half times more likely to say that they illegally download or trade music for free on the Internet.”

Conservative students take “the issue of accounting scandals and tax evasion more seriously than their fellow liberal students.”

Liberals who “reject the idea of absolute truth’ were more accepting of cheating at school”

“…stronger beliefs toward ‘conservatism’ translated into ‘higher levels of ethical values.’
There is a “link between “political liberalism” and “lying in your own self-interest,”

“Liberals were more willing to “let others take the blame” for their own ethical lapses, “copy a published article” and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of “cheating on an exam,”

Finally, “Sixties organizer Saul Alinsky, who both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say inspired and influenced them, once said the effective political advocate “doesn’t have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.”

I would argue that the same thing is true of morality. Conservatives are generally more inclined to affirm or defend Judeo-Christian views of morality while liberals are much more inclined to flush those valuse down the hopper.

Of course this doesn’t mean that all conservatives are honest and moral or that all liberals are dishonest and immoral (as St. Paul says, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God")—but it does make me wonder why it seems like more and more Evangelical Christians are supporting liberal politicians.

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Cooper Union hate speech

According to CNSNews:

The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York City is hosting the art show, which began May 27 and runs through June 10. In the show is a series of paintings by Felipe Baeza. One painting shows a man with his pants pulled down and a crucifix extending from his rectum. Under the painting it says, "el dia que me converti catolico," which means, "The day I became a Catholic."

Another Baeza piece substitutes a Rosary for the crucifix. Another one shows a man with his pants down and an angel holding two Rosaries with a penis attached to each of them. In yet another painting there is a halo hovering over a naked man with an erection, according to the Catholic League.

If anything similarly offensive against Muslims, Jews, homosexuals, African-Americans or women were on display, people would be outraged. But hate speech against Christians is tolerated.

Democrats vs. Obama

If you don't believe McCain or the Republicans, believe the Democrats on Obama.

Rezko convicted

Barack Obama's friend, Tony Rezko was convicted on 16 counts of corruption yesterday. Obama said this is not the Rezko he once knew.

Bolton: Obama the naive

Why Barack Obama is dangerous for America: See former U.N Ambassador, John Bolton's excellent article in the Los Angeles Times.