Critical Mass

Obama on gun rights

2008-06-27T09:04:00.002-04:00

It was interesting to see both candidates responses to the Supreme Court's ruling on the DC handgun ban. What was even more interesting was the Obama campaigns soft dismissal of the ruling, when in reality, Obama is much more liberal on the 2nd Amendment than he claims.

This section of the AP article on yesterday's ruling is quite revealing:

Obama has voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to lawsuits. He also took largely liberal positions on gun laws while in the Illinois legislature, including backing a ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.

A ban of all semiautomatic weapons? That's probably close to 60 or 70 percent of all guns. That is hardly supportive of the 2nd Amendment.

AIDS Pandemic is Over

2008-06-08T12:52:00.001-04:00

A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.

In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

Interesting article. I wonder two things:

1. What are all of the domestic AIDS programs going to redirect their funds to?
2. Why did the gay community protest the fact that AIDS was most rampant in their lifestyle for so long?

Abortion is racist.

2008-03-07T20:21:00.001-05:00

This is an article written by my friend, and black pastor, Reverend Clenard Childress. It is a telling view of abortion from the African American community perspective.

Margaret Sanger Would Have Loved Barack Obama

Contact: Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr., 866-242-4997, 201-704-9325 cell revchildress@verizon.net, www.Theurbanprophet.org

OPINION, March 5 /Christian Newswire/ -- Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr., founder of Black Genocide.Org, and president of Learn North East, submits the following and is available for comment:

Revelations of eugenic ideology and the racist practices of Planned Parenthood are unfolding more and more.

The public is just beginning to believe what people of conscience have known long ago. Planned Parenthood has diabolically perpetrated their murderous plot to surgically eliminate those they deem undesirable. In other words, kill the babies of unsuspecting minority women by aborting their children .Then, tell them this is a "good thing" for you and your people. No other ethnic group in the United States has been decimated more by abortion than the Afro-American community. The war being waged upon innocent captives in the womb is led by Planned Parenthood.

The strategy?

Convince the targeted community to accept their eugenic racist plan by selecting one from their ethnicity to promote it. One of Planned Parenthood's earliest known projects was in 1939. It was called the Negro Project. A project designed to control the birth of "human weeds" which was how Margaret Sanger referred to colored people. A project designed to introduce abortion, sterilization and different forms of birth control. This is what a co-eugenic wrote to Margaret Sanger to make sure the "Negro Project" was a success:

Clarance Gamble the Heir of Proctor and Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestions for the Negro Project," In the letter he suggested black leaders to be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge."

This is a letter to Clarance Gamble, from Margaret Sanger, which she wrote,

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

For those of you that don't know Barack Obama became a "minister" of Planned Parenthood a long time ago. He's so good at carrying out their racist murderous agenda against Afro-Americans and society at large that they gave him a 100% score on his voting record. Planned Parenthood is following the strategy of their racist founder Margaret Sanger to the letter. Planed Parenthood is saying 'We have our poster boy' get him out in front as a lure for their women and men. Get them into our abortion clinics and dismember their children by the millions! You say absurd? No Way? Planned Parenthoods Valentine cards were sent out to hundreds of thousands of young people in the nation. Whose face is plainly seen waving to them with a big smile? Whose endorsement is given to this racist and calloused organization? Who is used to lure children and give credibility to its hideous plot? Barack Obama, that's who!

On July17,2007, Barack Obama said this a few months ago before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund,

"Thank You, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, ($) Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country-and for men who have enough sense to realize you are helping them, all across the country. I want to thank Cecile Richards (national president of Planned Parenthood) for her extraordinary leadership. I am happy to see so many good friends here today, including Steve Trombley and Pam Sutherland from my home state of Illinois. We had a number of battles down in Springfield from many years and it's wonderful to see that they are here today"

The first friend mentioned is Cecile Richards who he commends for extraordinary leadership in killing babies who are disproportionately black.

The second is Steve Trombley; he is the president of Planned Parenthood Chicago. You can imagine how many of our young women have been victimized and whose pre-born children were killed under his supervision. His third friend he mentions is Pam Sutherland. She is the State CEO of Planned Parenthood for Illinois. America needs to know how much these folks were and continue today to be into the head and actions of Senator Barack Obama. How much did he compromise his own values?

I choose here to quote Dr. Martin Luther King from his last Sunday sermon before his death, "There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right. I believe today that there is a need for all people of goodwill to come with a massive act of conscience and say in the words of the old Negro spiritual, We ain't goin' study war no more." This is the challenge facing modern man.

When the challenge came to Barack Obama to call on conscience, he refused. What most Americans would say no to, he chooses to say, YES. He refused to do what the Dream called for, to allow your conscience to tell you what is right and what would be wrong. You may ask why but always remember this observation. Abortion is a lot like slavery. If it was not lucrative it would not have been legal!

Pam Sutherland ... of ... Illinois Planned Parenthood ... told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."

Let me interpret. We, Planned Parenthood, told him what to say and how to say it so we could continue to kill infants. Babies just a few inches from birth and those completely out of the womb that we missed! Our "colored minister" was well prepared by Planned Parenthood. Partial Birth abortion, which I will not describe here but know that 80% of Americans don't want this barbaric act practiced here in this country, Barack voted to keep it legal. The Born alive victims act is a law to protect a child that was born alive after a botched abortion. A law that would require that the child would receive medical assistance. Barack Obama voted against it. Yes Barack Obama with an "engaging personality" is being used by the leading abortion provider in the

United States

to promote and execute infanticide of predominately minority babies.

And what are most Afro-Americans saying, "Yes We Can, Yes We Can!" They are ignoring conscience. They are ignoring the Dream!

I have a Dream that one day, my four little children will live in a world where that they won't be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Yes, I believe it would be wonderful to have a Black man as president but it's more important for there to be God's man as president. That his or her character would reflect my values, values that are reflected in the 10 Commandments and our Declaration of Independence.

Most African-Americans are applauding him for the color of his skin. They have failed to look at closely the content of his character.

Martin Luther King , while sitting in a Birmingham jail, without the internet, cell phone, library resources or communication from the outside, penned that famous prophetic letter to answer some local Pastors who questioned his use of public demonstrations. Martin, in a portion of his letter discussed the responsibility of the church to address social issues, he said, "the early church put an end to such evils as infanticide" Martin Luther King wrote from the passion of his spirit. The spirit that was fighting for justice and equality. Martin called infant killing evil. Barack Obama calls it a women's right. Martin Luther King made his observation from a jail cell having been put there for defending the civil rights of those whom had been denied. Barack Obama has made his from caucusing with those who profit from the destruction of babies in the womb. These are men and women whom ignore the silent screams of a lost generation. Can we trust Obama's judgments? I think not.

Another quote form Dr. Martin Luther King that would be so appropriate here is "The Negro cannot win if he chooses to sacrifice the future of his children for immediate comfort and safety." It is now imperative that we all hear the words of this great prophet of God. It is obvious that we must reject the Barack Obamas that have placed us in great danger by their ideologies. A position Martin Luther King warns us we cannot expect to win!

Yes, Margaret Sanger would love Barack Obama. Her protégés certainly do

Interview with Jonathan Krive

2008-02-26T12:00:00.002-05:00

CollegePlus! Newsletter Accleration interviewed me on the art of communication. Below is the text:

According to researcher George Barna, only about half of Christians in America feel comfortable communicating what they believe. In fact, in his recent book Revolution, Barna notes that most believers don’t even base their decisions on the Scriptures but instead on what they take in from the media, family members, and peers. CollegePlus! graduate Jonathan Krive has made it part of his goal in life to change this disturbing phenomenon.

Krive currently lives in the Washington, D.C. area with his wife Noel. In 2007, he received a Presidential appointment to the Bush administration as a political appointee to the Department of Labor. He recently left the administration to become the fundraising coordinator for a nonprofit organization that helps philanthropists achieve their charitable goals.

Krive has been involved in persuasive communication for over a decade, beginning with speech competitions sponsored by the National Christian Forensics and Communication Association, or NCFCA for short. Krive won this nationwide competition for three consecutive years before pursuing his college studies and other outlets for communicating a biblical worldview in today’s postmodern culture.

To read the rest of the article, click here.

Jena 6 Myths

2007-10-24T20:24:00.000-04:00

Michelle Malkin posted an editorial on her website today from the Christian Science Monitor that completely debunks the media's portrayal of the Jena 6 incident. And the myths that have pervaded the media are extreme and revealing. You can read the whole article here.

"The media got most of the basics wrong. In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism. I should know. I live in Jena. My wife has taught at Jena High School for many years. And most important, I am probably the only reporter who has covered these events from the very beginning.The real story of Jena and the Jena 6 is quite different from what the national media presented. It’s time to set the record straight.

"Myth 1: The Whites-Only Tree. There has never been a “whites-only” tree at Jena High School.

"Myth 2: Nooses a Signal to Black Students. An investigation by school officials, police, and an FBI agent revealed the true motivation behind the placing of two nooses in the tree the day after the assembly. According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students.

"Myth 3: Nooses Were a Hate Crime. Although many believe the three white students should have been prosecuted for a hate crime for hanging the nooses, the incident did not meet the legal criteria for a federal hate crime.

"Myth 7: The Schoolyard Fight. The event on Dec. 4, 2006 was consistently labeled a “schoolyard fight.” But witnesses described something much more horrific. Several black students, including those now known as the Jena 6, barricaded an exit to the school’s gym as they lay in wait for Justin Barker to exit. (It remains unclear why Mr. Barker was specifically targeted.)

"Myth 8: The Attack Is Linked to the Nooses. Nowhere in any of the evidence, including statements by witnesses and defendants, is there any reference to the noose incident that occurred three months prior. This was confirmed by the United States attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, Donald Washington, on numerous occasions."

North American Union Moving Forward

2007-08-20T06:22:00.000-04:00

This week, President Bush will be meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello resort in Canada. The topic of discussion will be the Security and Prosperity Partnership. While the White House continues to dismiss the North American Union as a "silly conspiracy," documents obtained in FOIA requests suggest otherwise.

The Washington Times picked up this story on the front page today. I found one paragraph of this story specifically interesting.

"The White House dismissed suspicions of a coming North American Union as a 'silly' conspiracy theory. 'Americans are going to remain Americans, Canadians are going to remain Canadians and Mexicans are going to remain Mexicans,' a senior Bush administration official said on the condition of anonymity."

The irony? Even when the White House is trying to dismiss claims of the North American Union it has to use anonymous officials. Why didn't it come right out and say, this is not a plan to cede away American sovereignty? Because that would be denying the truth.

Worldnetdaily.com reported that 21 members of Congress sent a letter to President Bush urging him to open up the backroom deals being made about the SPP.

"The last paragraph of the letter called upon the president 'not to pledge or agree to any further movement in connection with the SPP at the upcoming North American summit.'

"The letter concluded that, 'in the interest of transparency and accountability, we urge you to bring to the Congress whatever provisions have already been agreed upon and those now being pursued or contemplated as part of this initiative, for the purpose of obtaining authorization through the normal legislative process.'

"Signatories to the letter included the following members of the House of Representatives:

Rep. Terry Everett, R-Alabama
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado
Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas
Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kansas
Rep. Walter Jones, R-North Carolina
Rep. David Davis, R-Tenn.
Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Georgia
Rep. John Boozman, R-Arkansas
Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn.
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Virginia
Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Florida
Rep. Sue Myrick, R-North Carolina
Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Alabama
Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa
Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon
Rep. Michael Rogers, R-Alabama
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Michigan
Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Alabama
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri

Thankfully members of Congress and the media are picking up on this plan to cede away American sovereignty.

GOP just doesn't get it

2007-08-16T06:18:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, at the St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce, Republican Party chairman Mel Martinez confirmed that, sometimes, the GOP just doesn't understand. Sen. Martinez scolded Republican presidential candidates Giuliani and Romney for taking a tough stance on illegal immigration and opposing the President's immigration reform. The St. Petersburg Times reported.

"Presidential contests are about leadership. ... It's about leading on the tough issues," Martinez told the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce. "It was easy to say, 'This wasn't good enough, this isn't right, I don't agree with Martinez.' ... But at the end of the day what is your answer? How would you solve this?"

Well the first step is to deport illegal immigrants, put the national guard back on the border, and toughen penalties against employers. And do not grant illegal aliens amnesty.

Isn't it simple logic, that if you increase some thing's desirability that more people will want it? Well how about offering citizenship in the greatest country in the world to the people of a corrupt third-world country? That's a pretty big incentive. And it will only increase the number of immigrants who seek to cross the border illegally.

Why doesn't the Republican Party get it? When tens of thousands of people called their senators to oppose the immigration bill, didn't that send a clear message? When GOP donations dropped off by almost 40 percent, didn't that send a clear message? The American people do not want amnesty, and they don't want illegal immigration. What ever happened to politicians representing the people?

Well, thankfully, most of the Republican Senators did represent America, and voted down the bill. Yet, Sen. Martinez still finds reason to criticize.

2007-08-06T06:38:00.000-04:00

Georgetown professor Yahya Hendi spoke at a gathering of Saudi Arabians yesterday, saying that Muslims are improving their image and position in society. The Washington Times picked up this Reuters news clip.

"Mr. Hendi said U.S. Muslims were working on 'nationalizing' Islam as part of the fabric of U.S. society, including cutting funding links to Muslim countries.

"Mr. Hendi, who met with President Bush days after September 11, said Muslims exhibited a tendency to shun political action such as voting and running for office because it was considered akin to surrendering to U.S. culture."

This position contradicts itself sorely. If Muslims want to integrate in our society, then they will have to realize that voting is a basic part of being a responsible citizen. And just for the record, that holds true for the 50 or so percent of eligible voters who do not exercise this right.

But seeing voting as a submission to U.S. culture is a fundamental flaw. Our forefathers died for the right to have a Constititutional Republic. Voting is not U.S. culture, it is basic freedom and liberty. And Muslims see this as weak and surrender, at least, according to Mr. Hendi.

Now, Mr. Hendi presents a rather tame image of Islam. However, the website Their Own Words presents a startling counterpart to this image. Ahmad Bahr, Acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council said on Sudan TV said, "America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain… Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today."

"We should have no conservatives in the media"

2007-08-01T06:21:00.000-04:00

With liberals trying to resurrect the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine, society has increased its scrutiny of the media. And while Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton attempt to censure conservative talkshow hosts, the liberal print and television media has gone mostly unmentioned.

News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch has drawn much attention recently. He finalized purchase of the Dow Jones company, including a much debated takeover of the Wall Street Journal. While DJI owners the Bancroft family fought off the Murdoch empire for several months, after much negotiation and haggling over editorial protections. the Wall Street Journal is now apart of the Murdoch machine.

Many journalists have decried the Murdoch takeover. Hopefully, he will provide one avenue in print media where conservatives can get a fair hearing. But that is exactly what liberals don't want - a fair hearing.

What, you say? Liberals want to censure conservatives? Absolutely.

Robert Licter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs said, "Murdoch brings together two things that many journalists think ruins their profession: money and conservatism."

Money ruining journalism, perhaps. But conservatism?

There you have it. From the horse's, or more appropriately, the donkey's mouth. The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with suppressing conservative freedom of speech.

Featured on WND.com

2007-07-30T06:09:00.000-04:00

On Saturday, July 28, 2007, Worldnetdaily.com published my article "Our cotton-candy-fluffy-bunny news." Disgusted with the recent coverage of celebrity lawbreakers, I decided to write an article decrying the low standards of journalism, especially in television coverage.

"This was a full week for the world media: President Bush explained that insurgents in Iraq are tied to al-Qaida, Attorney General Gonzalez sparred with U.S senators, and the Dow lost 226 points. Yet, as I watched the headlines blur across my TV screen, it was clear the media had "Hilton syndrome." Lindsay Lohan's arrest dominated headlines and was the lead story on almost every news program. A nauseating reminder of the Hilton media frenzy, America confirmed its infatuation with the cult of the celebrity.

"A month ago, when socialite Paris Hilton managed to get herself a jail sentence, the media pushed aside world affairs for the opportunity to catch a glimpse of the blond heiress. Enamored with her looks, and nothing else, the media reached rock bottom in standards of coverage.

"To confirm the permanence of our society's deterioration, news of Lindsay Lohan, as well as the meltdown of Britney Spears, spread across TV screens Thursday and Friday like a bad virus on your computer. Yet these are these stories Americans want. We clamor for news about our favorite celebrities. Does she trim her nails herself? Did he have a weekend fling on the beach? Will they get married, or just continue living together for the next 12 years?
Why are we so shallow?"

Al Qaeda in Iraq

2007-07-23T21:25:00.000-04:00

While liberals continue to tell America that Iraq is not apart of the war on terrorism, a revolutionary partnership has taken place in Iraq that confirms exactly the opposite. The Washington Times reported today that, "U.S. forces have brokered an agreement between Sunni and Shi'ite tribal leaders to join forces against al Qaeda and other extremists..."

Public Terrorist Number One is Al Qaeda, and it has terrorist cells in Iraq.

The rival tribes Suuni and Shi'ite have been warring factions for hundreds, or thousands of years. For these two groups to join forces is historic. It takes something pretty extreme to cause these rivals to halt their bloody feuding and take up arms against someone else. But Al Qaeda has enough of a presence in Iraq that it is the catalyst.

Iraqi President Talabani told President Bush earlier this year that, "We have serious problems with terrorism. The main enemy of Iraqi people is al Qaeda and terrorists cooperating with them."

So liberals, take a hint. We cannot accept anything except complete victory in Iraq.

A Less Hypocritcal Mexico

2007-07-20T06:11:00.000-04:00

"It's very hard for Mexico to preach to the north what it does not do to the south," said Mexico's ambassador Artuor Sarukhan in a meeting with some editors and reporters at The Washington times yesterday. "Unless we correct the fundamental challenge of the violation of human rights o fLatin American or Central American migrants crossing the border into Mexciao, it's very hard for me to come up and wag a finger and say you guys should protect the rights of my citizens in this country."

Ironically, Mexico has created a situation where many Mexicans no longer want certain jobs because they can come to the US and get better jobs. The International Herald Tribune reported on this story last year in its article "Mexico worries about its own southern border."

"Here at Mexico's own southern edge, Guatemalans cross legally and illegally to do jobs that Mexicans departing for the north no longer want."

Former Deputy Foreign Minister Geronimo Gutierrez admitted in an interview with the New York Times last year that, "Mexico's immigration laws were 'tougher than those being contemplated by the United States,' where the authorities caught 1.5 million people illegally crossing the Mexican border last year."

I guess Mexico is starting to realize that it can't enforce its own immigration laws and ask the US to ignore ours. However, even if Mexico opened its southern border, we certainly shouldn't follow suit.

One Nation, Under Shiva?

2007-07-16T20:38:00.000-04:00

“We meditate on the transcendental Glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky, and inside the soul of the Heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.”

These words were not the utterances of a priest at a pagan temple, nor were they the invoking of some New Age group. These were the opening words at the US Senate on Thursday. For the first time since the Senate was formed in 1789, a Hindu chaplain led the openings prayers in the upper chamber.

Guest Chaplain Rajan Zed, who directs interfaith relations at a Hindu temple in Reno, Nevada, prayed for peace and unity of spirit. He asked the “Deity Supreme” to, “Lead us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality.” He continued to emphasize unity, enlightenment, and being in one accord.

Sorry Mr. Zed, but unity is one thing the Senate is not good at. And praying to the ambiguous god of the earth, or the sky, or the soul of Heaven probably won’t do much good.

It wasn’t Krisha, Ganesh, Shiva, Maya, or any of the other hundreds of Hindu gods that the Founding Fathers prayed to.

In a handwritten manuscript book, George Washington recorded this prayer.

“O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”

You’ll notice the lack of Hindu gods in George Washington’s prayer. Hiduism plays no role in America’s heritage. However, hundreds of books document the strong Christian foundation of this country. And it is this heritage that gives the Senate the tradition of opening up its proceedings with a Christian prayer.

John Quincy Adams, during a 4th of July celebration address, specifically tied the founding of this nation to the Christian faith.

“Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.”

The House Judiciary Committee took up the constitutionality of chaplains in Congress in 1854. In its findings, the committee specifically cited Christianity as vital to America.
“[W]hereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore, Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer and that the ministers of the Gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty.”

After guest chaplain Zed finished his prayer, Senator Harry Reid saw it fit to comment on the blessing. “I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing a faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our Heavenly Father regarding peace,” he said.

It sounds like Senator Reid wasn’t listening to Mr. Zed’s prayer. If Senator Reid is referring to the God of the Bible when he says “Heavenly Father,” then he and the guest chaplain are talking about two different things. The Bible does not support the idea of a god who dwells in the earth, but also in the sky and heaven. (In fact, traditionally it is someone else who is in the “heart” of the earth.)

This idea of compatibility among all faiths is a myth. The world contains more Muslims than Hindus, but that doesn’t mean the Senate should invite Osama Bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give an opening prayer to Allah.

Our country has a specifically Christian heritage. And we should protect and preserve this heritage by continuing the tradition of Christian chaplains asking God’s blessing on the proceedings in Congress.

A Talking Polar Bear

2007-07-16T06:34:00.000-04:00

I was riding the Metro in Washington DC the other day when I saw this advertisement on the wall. I found it quite ironic that organizations will put more time into protecting a polar bear than an unborn baby.

Instead of wasting money putting words in a polar bear's mouth, which I'm sure he would much rather have had a seal or a human in his mouth, this group should run an ad that says something along the lines of, "First you create a single-parent home for me. Now you want to kill me." (Yes, many children are born into wonderful homes, but almost half, if not more, of all babies are born into homes that have a less than optimal environment.)

Where did this organization get the idea that polar bears are mad about their ice melting? Even that first statement is dubious. Who says that the ice is the polar bears? I think the next ad in this hypothetical world should be a seal or sea lion to the polar bears, "First you eat my baby seal, now you eat me."

Obviously polar bears, seals, and every other predator does not believe in animal rights. They freely eat members of other animal species, and sometimes of their own species. A predator will often look for the weak, the sick or the young. Like I mentioned in my article about sea lions earlier this month, animal rights activists are mostly self-contradictory.

"One day the self-appointed protector of the environment decries humanity for encroaching on wildlife and crimping the mating habits of the deer mouse; and the next day the same environmentalist swears by the theory of evolution, praising the notion of survival of the fittest and natural selection.

Justice for Border Agents

2007-07-12T06:54:00.000-04:00

The Washington Times reported today that the Senate Judiciary committee will hold hearings next Tuesday on the punishment of two border agents.

"Ignacio Ramos, 37, and Jose Alonso Compean, 28, were sentenced in October to 11- and 12-year prison terms, respectively, for shooting Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican national, as he fled into Mexico after abandoning 743 pounds of marijuana near Fabens, Texas."

"Border Patrol agents have a difficult and often dangerous job in guarding our nation's borders," [Senator Diane Feinstein] said in letters to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "I believe that aggressive prosecution of Border Patrol agents has a chilling effect on their ability to carry out their duties and on the morale of all agents.

"I am extremely concerned about how this case continues to unfold," she said.

While Senator Feinstein is normally wrong on most issues, she certainly does not dissapoint here. She is absolutely right. Not only does the Border Patrol have to worry about automatic rifles and drug smugglers, but now, agents also have to worry about federal prosecution.

Not only did the government prosecute these two heros, but it proceeded to give both medical attention and full immunity to the known drug smuggler. An article in WorldNetDaily.com puts things in perspective.

"When Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos pulled the trigger last February, all he knew was that his partner was lying on the ground behind him – bloodied from a struggle with a fleeing suspect – shots had been fired and now, it appeared, the drug smuggler he was pursuing had turned toward him with what looked to be a gun in his hand.

In the split-second he had to respond, Ramos determined the course of his and his partner's lives – federal prison for the next 20 years for assault with serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharging of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, violating civil rights and obstruction of justice. "

Both of these agents were named Men of the Year on FrontPageMag.com.

Hopefully, after review of the events, the committee will recommend, and President Bush will grant, a commutation, if not a full pardon to these two men.

Enforcing our immigration laws

2007-07-11T06:41:00.000-04:00

Monday evening, the Prince William County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to start enforcing immigration laws. Prince William, a large suburban county in northern Virginia, adopted this resolution with some excellent provisions.

"All officials, agencies and personnel of the County shall fully comply with and, to the full extent permitted by law, support the enforcement of federal law prohibiting the entry into, presence or residence in the United States of aliens in violation of federal immigration law.

"County Police Officers shall inquire into the citizenship or immigration status of any person detained for a violation of state law or municipal ordinance..."

I'm sure it won't be long before the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund files suit to prevent this resolution from being fully enforced. I wonder why MALDEF even has "American" in its title. There is little American about it.

Hopefully other counties will follow this bold example.

Who can kill the N-word

2007-07-10T06:31:00.000-04:00

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People hosted its annual convention in Detroit this past weekend. On Monday, the NAACP held a "funeral" for the N-word.

"Today we're not just burying the N-word, we're taking it out of our spirit," said Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. "We gather burying all the things that go with the N-word. We have to bury the 'pimps' and the 'hos' that go with it."

Mayor Kilpatrick is absolutely right, the N-word embodies a whole attitude - a whole culture. If the NAACP wants to get rid of the n-word, it will have to to do more than push for racial equality. It must eradicate a whole attitude. Much of the hip-hop culture is centered around a demeaning attitude. In our society the n-word has as much to do with culture as it does race.

I could list lyrics fom some of the many famous hip-hip artists like 50 cent, Kanye West or Eminem (Yes, he is white, but he is also certainly part of the hip-hop culture.) But everyone knows that the n-word is featured prominently in some, if not many of their songs.

I strongly believe that we are all created equal, and endowed by our Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property. I hope that the NAACP will follow through on this metaphorical funeral and kill the attitude that goes along with the n-word as well.

Liberal Opposition Totally Illogical

2007-07-09T21:59:00.000-04:00

On July 12, 2007, the Senate will hold confirmation hearings for Dr. James Holsinger, nominated to be the Surgeon General of the United States. His nomination has sparked opposition from both liberals and conservatives. Liberals detest his position on homosexuality, and conservatives question his ambiguous positions on stem cell research. While he may quell the conservative opposition by giving straightforward answers about his current positions, Dr. Holsinger will likely be unable to change the minds of liberals.

While liberals point to many incidents in attempt to paint Dr. Holsinger as "anti-homosexual," much of this rhetoric stems from a paper he published in 1991 as the Chief Medical Director at the US Department of Veteran Affairs. The paper was titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality." (WARNING: This paper is graphic, and should only be read by adult readers.) In the paper, he reasoned that acts of male homosexuals pose a higher risk of disease and bodily damage than heterosexual relationships.

The paper closes with this statement.

The logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male pipe fitting or the female pipe fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other. When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and disease may occur as noted above. Therefore, based on the simplest known anatomy and physiology, when dealing with the complementarity of the human sexes, one can simply say, Res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself!

Upon President Bush's announcement to nominate Dr. Holsinger, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said, “his writings suggest a scientific view rooted in anti-gay beliefs that are incompatible with the job of serving the medical health of all Americans."

Nowhere in his paper did Dr. Holsinger exhibit any sentiment that suggests he is against homosexuals. He simply pointed out an obvious fact. Yet he was immediately labeled "anti-gay." No amount of explanation will quell the liberal opposition because this opposition is not based on a logical progression.

Official Documentation on the North American Union

2007-07-09T21:27:00.000-04:00

WorldNetDaily.com reported today:

A powerful think tank chaired by former Sen. Sam Nunn and guided by trustees including Richard Armitage, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold Brown, William
Cohen and Henry Kissinger, is in the final stages of preparing a report to the White House and U.S. Congress on the benefits of integrating the U.S., Mexico and Canada into one political, economic and security bloc.

The final report, published in English, Spanish and French, is scheduled for submission to all three governments by Sept. 30, according to the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

Here is some more background information about the North American Union:

It is being promoted through the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act application to get files about the SPP. This is what they found.

"On March 23, 2005, heads of government Vincente Fox, George W. Bush, and Paul Martin launched the North American partnership at a meeting in Waco, Texas, with the expressed goal of 'a safer, more prosperous North America.'"

Back in 2006, NewsMax.com did a three part series about the NAU and SPP. In the interview, Diane Alden interview author Jerome Corsi. Mr. Corsi had this to say.

"We are close to a coup d'état by the executive branch. What I have come across in my investigation reminds me of the plot in the blockbuster '60s book 'Seven Days in May' ... having to do with a military coup plot against civilian government. The conclusions I arrive at seem more in line with some fantastic plot line of the TV series '24'."

Highlights in Irony

2007-07-06T06:13:00.000-04:00

Today, the top stories drip with irony. First, of course, is our friend Bill and his comments about President Bush for commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby.

"You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy," Bill Clinton said. The Bush administration officials "believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

Sounds vaguely familiar. Perhaps that's the line America should have used when Clinton pardoned or commuted over 175 sentences in one day. Here is a good laundry list of some of the more notable pardons Clinton granted during his terms.

While the guilt of Scooter Libby is obvious, the punishment likely does not fit the crime. Dan Proft has a great commentary on HumanEvents.com.

"Libby was about to be sent to the federal hoosegow for 2.5 years for lying about how he had learned about Plame’s identity, even though said lies were not in furtherance of any criminal act and -- since he was not the leak in the first place -- even though his lies ultimately had nothing to do with the stated purpose of the investigation in the first place."

Looks like Clinton doesn't have a leg to stand on. Sudan might as well start criticizing the US for human rights violations

Sticking with the Clinton administration, Al Gore's Live Earth concerts are set to kick off today. However, the British rock band Arctic Monkeys pointed out the irony of all this hoopla.

"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts. "Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.

Remember "The Filthy Fifteen"? The Parents Music Resource Center, co-founded by Tipper Gore, released a list of musicians whose songs should be banned because of gross obscenity. Madonna made it to number eight on the list for her sexually explicit lyrics in the song "Dress You Up."

Oh, and did I mention that Madonna will headline the Live Earth concert in London. Let's just hope that Tipper Gore doesn't attend that concert.

What does Independence Day mean to you?

2007-07-05T10:04:00.000-04:00

Growing up in the United States, I often take our liberties for granted. Every year, I celebrate July 4th in the typical American way: fireworks. Sometimes with family, other times with friends. July 3rd always finds me scouring the local pages of my newspaper for the best fireworks displays. Being in Washington DC definitely has its benefits during Independence Day. The National Symphony Orchestra and top artists always perform a great show on the Capitol Lawn. Then to the backdrop of Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture, one of the most impressive fireworks displays wows audiences all over DC. The fireworks light up the foreground of the Washington Monument for a picture perfect evening.

But is that what Independence Day really is?

Prior to my venture to the Capitol lawn, I was lounging in my apartment taking care of some weekend type chores when my roommate said hi on his way out the door. He is Serbian, and he grew up under communist oppression. Though he's been in DC for a little while now, his enthusiasm for liberty is inspiring. In his thick French accent, he asked what I was doing for the day. I replied with my plans to attend the concert, then asked him what he was doing. His answer embodies how all Americans should feel. "I am going to celebrate my first Independence Day in the capital for the free world," he said.

The capital of the free world.

His first Independence Day.

What a powerful idea. Perhaps it would do us all some good to spend time with those celebrating their July 4th in America for the first time.

Animal Rights? Sea Lions Say No!

2007-07-02T07:07:00.000-04:00

Most animal rights activists put themselves in the stickiest contradiction and never seem to realize it. One day the self-appointed protector of the environment decries humanity for encroaching on wildlife and crimping the mating habits of the deer mouse; and the next day the same environmentalist swears by the theory of evolution, praising the notion of survival of the fittest and natural selection.

Such is the situation that the Department of Agriculture has gotten itself into. DOA has actually deployed a salmon protection team to fend off hungry sea lions. Ironically, "preliminary numbers indicate the sea lions caught more salmon this season than in any of the six others since records have been kept."

This article is really hilarious. One should ask, did the salmon actually ask for protection? Even more important, are the sea lions going to feel that their animal rights have been violated?

Marine animals are protected by the 1972 Marine Mammals Protection Act, which imposes stiff penalties for killing such an animal. Perhaps we should jail the sea lions for killing the salmon?

Us humans have taken on a mantle of protection via legislation and legislated handcuffs around our own hands. The salmon should really protest this law and ask the death penalty for sea lions.

I will believe in animal rights the day an animal of any species speaks and asks for individual rights. It's a simple request.

Immigration Bill Must Come as a Package

2007-06-29T06:48:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff reacted to the defeat of the Senate immigration bill with disappointment saying that, "Some necessary tools of enforcement were left on the floor of the Senate."

I do not understand why the Senate cannot pass legislation adopting these "necessary tools" and rejecting an amnesty. Its as if the Senate cannot secure the border without providing an amnesty bill. This self-imposed handicap further emphasizes the irony of this schizophrenic body. Why would America want to increase border security, and then offer increased incentive for would-be illegal immigrants.

American citizenship is a prized possession. And if someone from a third-world country with a corrupt government can attain this prize simply by crossing the border and then paying a small fine, well that's quite a deal...for them. But what an insult to the thousands of applicants who are standing in line, sometimes literally, to get legal citizenship.

Perhaps Mr. Chertoff will encourage the Senate to take up increased border security with no strings attached.

Feature on WorldNetDaily

2007-06-29T06:44:00.000-04:00

Today, the top visited online news site posted my commentary on the recent Supereme Court decision on race. WorldNetDaily.com featured my article "Racism on the High Court." Here is an excerpt:

"School districts in Seattle and Louisville both had programs to ensure a racially diverse school population. In fact, the program in Seattle attempted to create schools where 41 percent of students were white and 59 percent were nonwhite. The court struck these programs down. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

"Wait, did he say to prevent discrimination one should stop discriminating? What a novel idea."

Read more here.

Immigration Bill Fails

2007-06-28T21:41:00.000-04:00

The Senate had its immigration showdown today, and conservatives won! Because this immigration bill is so important, I am posting a list of votes:

YEAs ---46
Akaka (D-HI)Bennett (R-UT)Biden (D-DE)Boxer (D-CA)Cantwell (D-WA)Cardin (D-MD)Carper (D-DE)Casey (D-PA)Clinton (D-NY)Conrad (D-ND)Craig (R-ID)Dodd (D-CT)Durbin (D-IL)Feingold (D-WI)Feinstein (D-CA)Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH)Hagel (R-NE)Inouye (D-HI)Kennedy (D-MA)Kerry (D-MA)Klobuchar (D-MN)Kohl (D-WI)Kyl (R-AZ)Lautenberg (D-NJ)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)Lieberman (ID-CT)Lincoln (D-AR)Lott (R-MS)Lugar (R-IN)Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ)Menendez (D-NJ)Mikulski (D-MD)Murray (D-WA)Nelson (D-FL)Obama (D-IL)Reed (D-RI)Reid (D-NV)Salazar (D-CO)Schumer (D-NY)Snowe (R-ME)Specter (R-PA)Whitehouse (D-RI)Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---53
Alexander (R-TN)Allard (R-CO)Barrasso (R-WY)Baucus (D-MT)Bayh (D-IN)Bingaman (D-NM)Bond (R-MO)Brown (D-OH)Brownback (R-KS)Bunning (R-KY)Burr (R-NC)Byrd (D-WV)Chambliss (R-GA)Coburn (R-OK)Cochran (R-MS)Coleman (R-MN)Collins (R-ME)Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX)Crapo (R-ID)DeMint (R-SC)Dole (R-NC)Domenici (R-NM)Dorgan (D-ND)Ensign (R-NV)Enzi (R-WY)Grassley (R-IA)Harkin (D-IA)Hatch (R-UT)Hutchison (R-TX)Inhofe (R-OK)Isakson (R-GA)Landrieu (D-LA)McCaskill (D-MO)McConnell (R-KY)Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE)Pryor (D-AR)Roberts (R-KS)Rockefeller (D-WV)Sanders (I-VT)Sessions (R-AL)Shelby (R-AL)Smith (R-OR)Stabenow (D-MI)Stevens (R-AK)Sununu (R-NH)Tester (D-MT)Thune (R-SD)Vitter (R-LA)Voinovich (R-OH)Warner (R-VA)Webb (D-VA)

Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)

Blatant Bias

2007-06-27T07:06:00.000-04:00

Even though the New York Times has admitted its liberal bias, every now and then its skewed reporting still astonishes me. On the second page of the Washington Times (and released by AP) ran the headline "Louisianans OK partial-birth ban".

"The Louisiana Legislature approved a ban on a late-term abortion procedure yesterday, the first state to do so since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal ban earlier this year. The House voted unanimously to approve a measure that would allow "partial-birth" abortions only when failure to perform it would endanger the mother's life."

Many other papers picked up this story, The International Herald Tribune, the Chicago Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, and more. (Admittedly they almost all ran the AP story, but at least they ran the story.)

The partial-birth abortion issue is just slightly big news. This bill is the first to pass both houses of a state legislature (notably almost unanimously), and it somehow misses the editors at the New York Times.

Every copy of the Times has a textbox on the upper corner, front page, which says "All the News That's Fit to Print." I think that needs to be changed to "All the News That is Filtered to Praise Liberals and Demonize Conservatives."

To emphasize the bias, the paper made room to print the story "Louisiana: Nude and Dangerous Behind the Wheel". Well, I guess that's the news that is fit to print.

Update: The New York Times online edition did actually include this story on their online version under the very small National Briefing section, buried under layers of navigation.

Steps to a North American Union

2007-06-25T07:01:00.000-04:00

Two weeks ago, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published additional details about a project that will "demonstrate the ability of Mexico-based motor carriers to operate safely in the United States." Translation: Mexican commercial drivers can now drive in the US without a US drivers license.

Just today, the Washington Times published an article called "Full access for Mexican trucks hits rough road".

"A Bush administration plan to proceed with a pilot program to give Mexican truckers full access of U.S. roads has caused a bipartisan uproar on Capitol Hill.

"The cross-border trucking program is bad for America,' said Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and presidential candidate. 'It appears, under the current program, that commercial interests are being pushed ahead of the safety and security interests of the American people.'

"Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill complained the program would pose serious safety concerns, and the House last month voted 411-3 to place a series of restrictions on Mexican trucks and their drivers, designed to delay the administration's program indefinitely."

This program is just another step in the plan to implement the North American Union. Dr. Jerome Corsi has written extensively about this treaty on Human Events.com.

"Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

"What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005."

Carter: A Living Legacy of Ludicrous Ideas

2007-06-21T21:31:00.000-04:00

Former President Jimmy Carter once again confirmed his leadership of the "presidents who have horrible foreign policy ideas and then base policies on those ideas" club. In an address to a human rights group in Dublin, Ireland, Carter blasted the Bush Administration for not treating Hamas the same way it has treated Fatah.

"Besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, Hamas has proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas."

And this is the kind of person who gets a Nobel peace prize? Then again, Yassir Arafat got a Nobel prize too.

Carter went on to say that the Administration's rejection of Hamas' authority after the Palestinian elections was "criminal."

I'm sure Hamas is not offended at our "criminal" actions however. How could they be? Hamas obviously does not believe in the just rule of law, but only in the radical Jihad. In order to be criminal you must have laws for the criminals to break.

Catering to Terrorists (Again)

2007-06-20T21:28:00.000-04:00

President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have both extended a welcoming hand to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (NYT, WP, WT). In their meeting at the White House today, Bush and Olmert both agreed to cooperate with the Palestinian leader (not just cooperate, but also fund a supply.)

Bush said of Abbas he is the "the president of all the Palestinians" and "a reasonable voice amongst the extremists."

Once again the Administration runs into the lesser of two evils. But condemning Hamas by cooperating with another terrorist supporter is just like the US funding the Taliban in the 1990s, and then turning around and supporting the Northern Alliance to defeat the Taliban.

Let us not forget that Abbas is himself an Islamic extremist. He published a book back in 1983 stating that 6 million as the total number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust was "peddled" by the Jews, and that in fact "the Jewish victims may number six million or be far fewer, even fewer than one million." He has a long history of terrorism, including participation in the Munich Olympics massacre.

The Wall Street Journal wrote a serious critique of Abbas here.

"But if Americans and Europeans are genuinely interested in promoting Palestinian-Israeli peace, it is time for them to take a realistic look at [Abbas'] record ... His outright refusal to confront and disarm terrorists, in violation of the Road Map, hardly registers anymore in the Western media and where it does, it is usually excused and attributed to his relative political weakness ... the Palestinian Authority continues to glorify terrorists."

Ironically just last year Bush praised the "democratic" elections in Palestine, regardless of the result. But just because a leader is democratically elected doesn't mean that he will be good. In fact, the US should learn an important lesson from this recent Palestinian civil war. (Can it be a civil war if the Palestinians don't have a state to separate over?)

James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation states it well, "The rise of "Hamastan" in Gaza is also a sharp indictment of the Bush Administration's policy of supporting rapid democratization of a society that lacked the necessary civil and political culture to sustain a pluralist democracy."

Got Environmentalists?

2007-06-19T06:32:00.000-04:00

Illegal aliens are getting creative in their border crossings. They aren't simply walking across the border anymore. Now, when they cross over parts of the border covered by national forest, they actually start forest fires to distract park rangers and border patrol, and even burn the rangers out of observation posts.

Where are the environmentalists when you need them! If environmentalists can complain about a border fence damaging some ecosystem in San Diego, then what about deliberately torching a US national forest? (To say nothing about smoking US Border Patrol out of their guard towers.)

A Good Idea From Democrats?

2007-06-19T06:03:00.000-04:00

The House Democrats have come up with a potentially successful idea...somebody call the newspapers! Actually it is in the newspapers. The Washington Times reported today that House Democrats are considering separating the immigration bill in to several parts based on topic.

"House Democrats say they may break the immigration issue up into a series of smaller bills that would put off the tougher parts and allow others to pass, such as border security, and high-tech and agriculture worker programs that have clear support."

This always seemed like a simple no brainer. Yet the Senate can't seem to figure out that an immigration bill will not pass if it contains amnesty. (One that doesn't contain a path to citizenship.) The Senate should take a hint and create at least three separate bills: one to fund border security, one to discuss a guest worker program, and one to deal with deal with immigration quotas and the point system. (hopefully the middle bill fails.)

Unashamed politicizing of Darfur

2007-06-18T06:46:00.000-04:00

Today the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stooped to a new level and blamed climate change for the genocide in Darfur.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change. Ban said in an opinion piece to the Washington Post. " It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought."

Using climate change as a scapegoat for the violent Islamic fascists who have murdered tens of thousands of people was rhetorically brilliant and personally disgusting. Not only did the UN Secretary General increase the urgency in solving the so-called problem of global warming, but he also shifted the spotlight away from radical Jihadists.

James Phillips, research fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, wrote about the Darfur crisis in 2004, clearly explaining its roots.

The Darfur crisis, like the previous man-made famine in southern Sudan, was engineered by Sudan's dictatorship to suppress popular resistance to its radical Islamic agenda. Ever since seizing power in a 1989 coup, General Omar al-Bashir's regime has exacerbated tensions with non-Muslims in the south and with Sufi Muslims, predominant in western Sudan, who resent the forced imposition of a harsh brand of Islamic law.
When Darfur tribes rebelled in early 2003, the Bashir regime attacked defenseless villages suspected of supporting the predominantly non-Arab rebels. Much of the regime's terror campaign has been conducted by brutal Janjaweed (a colloquialism roughly translated as "devils on horses") militias that Khartoum implausibly claims are criminal elements beyond its control. The Janjaweed, who reportedly share camps with the Sudanese Army, have burned hundreds of villages and robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered their non-Arab inhabitants. Although most of their victims are Muslims, the Janjaweed consider them apostates who deserve death or slavery if they resist the jihad invoked by the extremist regime. Victims report that the Janjaweed often shout "abeed" (slaves) before they rape or kill.
The United Nations estimates that 1.2 million people have been driven from their homes and that roughly 2 million people are in dire need of food aid. Approximately 50,000 people have already died in Darfur, and the U.S. government estimates that another 1,000 die every day from attacks, starvation, and disease.

The United Nations has been dragging its feet since the genocide began. Just last year, the UN Human Rights Council convened its fourth special session to address the Darfur region of Sudan. The result was a resolution that did not assign any guilt, but simply expressed "concern regarding the seriousness of the human rights and humanitarian situation." The resolution did not even mention the word "violations." [28]

During that special session, the UN approved an investigory mission, led by Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams. The Sudanese government denied the mission entry to Darfur, forcing it to investigate from Ethiopia and Chad. As expected, the mission's report strongly condemned the Sudanese government for orchestrating and participating in "large-scale international crimes in Darfur."[29] Allies of Sudan on the council subsequently rejected the report as invalid because the investigatory team had not gone to Darfur. The council finally adopted a weak resolution that "took note" of the Williams report but did not adopt its recommendations or condemn the Sudanese government for its actions in Darfur.[30]

If the UN wants to seriously address the genocide in Darfur, it must stop using political antics to promote pseudo-science and accept the real cause for this humanitarian crisis.

Where's the fence?

2007-06-07T06:15:00.000-04:00

RapidResponse Media in conjunction with Grassfire.org is running a media campaign called "Where's the Fence?" The ad is absolutely hilarious. It is a parody of the 1980s Wendy's campaign "Where's the Beef?"

The ad also makes an excellent point, what happened to the fence that Congress appropriated funds for? Back in October 2006, Bush signed legislation authorizing 700 miles of border fence. However, Congressman Duncan Hunter stated recently in the Republican debates that to date, only 11 miles have been built.

Before we even consider revamping immigration laws, how about enforcing the laws on the books!

Republicans losing support.

2007-05-31T06:53:00.000-04:00

Republicans are really shooting themselves in the foot with the immigration issue. It seems clear that conservatives want border security, period. The amnesty, guest worker program and earmarks of the huge immigration bill make it a poison pill to swallow.

Now conservatives are responding with their pocketbooks. The Washington Times reported today that the RNC is losing its donor base.

"Faced with an estimated 40 percent fall-off in small-donor contributions and aging phone-bank equipment that the RNC said would cost too much to update, Anne Hathaway, the committee's chief of staff, summoned the solicitations staff last week and told them they were out of work, effective immediately, the fired staffers told The Times."

Republican leaders need to take note that they will lose support if they continue to promote this liberal immigration bill.

CPAC

2007-03-06T22:07:00.000-05:00

Last week was the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington DC. I had the privilege of hosting the radio podcast The Spew, recording live from radio row.

Aside from meeting with some fantastic conservatives, I also listened to almost all of the front-runners for the 2008 presidential nomination. The CPAC straw poll , yielded some interesting results. Not suprising was the fact that Governor Mitt Romney won, and Senator John McCain came in last (or the top tier candidates). The interesting part was Speaker Newt Gingrich's reception at CPAC. People stood on their chairs to clap as Gingrich walked in from the back of the room, shaking hands as he made his way to the front. He also claimed fourth place in the straw poll. Not bad for someone who is not even officially running.

Unfortunately, none of the candidates distinguished themselves as the 2008 hero of the conservative movement. However, I think America is much to fascinated with the campaign. And pundits are making predictions much to early. I'm sure we will have many suprises coming out as time goes on.

One suprise may come from Vice President Dick Cheney, as reported on Page One Daily News. The site reports and article in a British paper, about Condoleezza Rice possibly replacing Cheney.

Bad Decisions from the UN...Again

2007-02-14T21:21:00.000-05:00

The Toronto Daily News reported today that, "According to the new UNISEF report, United States and Britain ranked at the bottom of a U.N. survey evaluating the well-being of children in industrialized countries."

The article goes on to say that, "UNICEF ranked 21 industrialized countries in six categories: material well-being, health and safety, education, peer and family relationships, behaviors and risks, and young people’s own subjective sense of well-being."

"The U.S. was last for health and safety, measured by rates of infant mortality, low birth weight, immunization, and deaths from accidents and injuries."

Of the industrialized nations, of which there are around 21, the Netherlands, Finland, and Denmark ranked at the top! But take a look at this article . The Dutch government intends to expand its current euthanasia policy, setting guidelines for when doctors may end the lives of terminally ill newborns with the parents' consent. Somehow, the UN doesn't factor euthanasia into the equation of "well-being".

Just another example of UN incompetency.

Giuliani

2007-02-13T14:14:00.000-05:00

This past weekend I attended the California Republican Convention where Rudy Giuliani was the lunch speaker. A charismatic speaker, he definitely gained the support of the moderate-leaning audience.

With a weak Republican pool of presidential candidates, some conservatives may be tempted to support him as an alternative to McCain. This is a great primer on why conservatives should not compromise their principles to support this liberal Republican. Here are some exercpts:

On Abortion:

"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999

On Illegal Immigration:

But, as Michelle Malkin has revealed, under Giuliani, New York was an illegal alien sanctuary and "America's Mayor" actually sued the federal government in an effort to keep New York City employees from having to cooperate with the INS:

"When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law."

Back again

2007-02-13T01:34:00.000-05:00

I am glad to return to the internet world. During my stint on the George Allen campaign in Virginia, I took down my blog so as not to give the liberal left an opportunity to twist the words of a campaign member.

I was the Eastern Regional Politcal Director, coordinating all of the grassroots, volunteer, and visibility activities in the northern part of the first congressional district. As a staff member of the Republican Party of Virginia, I got an inside look at how things turned out.

The lesson that we can learn is conservative principles will always win over middle-of-the-road thinking. The marriage amendment passed in Virginia by an overwhelming 57 percent. If Allen had been within even five points of the amendment, he would still have had a clean victory. The reality on the campaign: Allen did not publicly and strongly align himself with the amendment until the last two weeks of the campaign. Had he show clearly that he supported the amendment, and his liberal opponent Jim Webb was against it, then Republicans would still probably control he Senate. Hopefully Republicans will learn this lesson for the 2008 elections.

Gender Identification

2006-05-03T23:01:00.000-04:00

The liberal attack on the traditional family is broad, but this report on "Gender Identity" that a friend emailed to me is astonishing.

Children and youth are already confused enough without the absurd pseudo-psychology that those within the homosexual agenda promote. This report entitled, produced by the Gay Straight Alliance, the Transgender Law Center, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is a perfect example.

The report opens: "Is your school safe for guys who aren’t as masculine as other guys? Is your school safe for girls who aren’t as feminine as other girls? Is your school safe for youth who identify as transgender?"

The deception in this introduction is the word "safe." Physical safety should be guaranteed to everyone, however, the report's definition is absurd. Consider this paragraph further down the page:

Instead of creating safe spaces for gender non-conforming and transgender students, school administrations often enforce policies and practices that can punish gender non-conforming and transgender youth simply for being who they are.

Examples of discrimination based on gender identity, appearance, and behavior include: refusing to allow students to wear clothing that fits their gender identity, denying students access to educational or extra-curricular opportunities due to their actual or perceived gender identity and/or expression, and a school’s failure to protect students from harassment based on their actual or perceived gender identity and/or expression.

Under the "Myth" section, number seven states:

Myth: Transgender women are not “real” women and transgender men and not “real” men.
Fact: People’s “true” gender is not defined by the sex they were assigned at birth. Our true gender is based on our gender identity. When a person who is transgender expresses an identity different from the one they were assigned at birth, the gender they are expressing is their “real” gender.

This report just evidences how absurd and irrational the homosexual left is.

Back From Hiatus

2006-04-13T21:17:00.000-04:00

Well folks, as you've probably noticed. I've been on hiatus during my stint on the Howard Kaloogian Congressional campaign. While I am extremely dissapointed at the outcome, it was an excellent experience. (Plus, beautiful San Diego has the best weather in the US.)

I'm at a crossroads right now. I have many choices to make in the next few weeks that may determine much of my future. While I am anxious, I am also very excited.

In the meantime, I came across another example of media ignorance and liberal deception a few days ago. Reuters news released an article titled, "Immigrant advocates convene May 1 work stoppage."

Before I go any further, notice the title. The title for pro-amnesty/illegal immigrant individuals is "immigrant advocates." However, advocates for increased immigration and advocates for illegal immigration differ greatly. I, myself, could be considered an immigrant advocate, in that I support immigrants coming into this nation for a better life. However the must come legally. This is the first paragraph of that article:

"U.S. immigrant rights advocates on Thursday called for a nationwide boycott of work, school and commerce on May 1, seeking to capitalize on the momentum of recent mass demonstrations across the country."

"U.S. immigrant rights advocates"? What rights does one have when his or her first action is to break this country's laws? As individuals who have no right to be in America, illegal immigrants have no claim to any legal entitlements.

While we could debate about illegal immigration all day, the greater observation here is of a typical liberal tactic: creating rights where none exist. The right to have an abortion; the right to get married despite obvious problems; now, its the right to be in this country illegally. My question: where did these rights come from?

US reports two more deaths after abortion pill

2006-03-17T17:19:00.000-05:00

By Lisa Richwine 2 hours, 45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two new deaths have been reported after women took the abortion pill known as RU-486 but officials do not know if the fatalities are connected to the drug, U.S. regulators said on Friday.

"At this time we are investigating all circumstances associated with these cases and are not able to confirm the causes of death," the Food and Drug Administration said in an advisory to the public.

Four previously reported deaths were linked to complications from a bacterial infection that developed after the women took the abortion pill, which is sold by privately held Danco Laboratories.

Parental Notification Laws Decrease Abortion.

2006-03-08T21:44:00.000-05:00

The New York Times wrote about a study last week, which claims to destroy the link between parental-consent laws and decreases in abortion. Michael New published an excellent critique of the study on the National Review website.

However, a new study published by the New England Journal of Medicine does find a strong link between consent/notification laws and a decrease in abortion. The result, "The Texas parental notification law was associatedwith a decline in abortion rates among minors from 15 to 17years of age." The decline recorded was anywhere between 11 and 20 percent, depending on the age group. Copied below is the executive summary of the article:

Background On January 1, 2000, Texas began enforcement of alaw that requires physicians to notify a parent of a minor childseeking an abortion at least 48 hours before the procedure.
Methods We assessed changes in the rates in Texas of abortionsand births (events per 1000 age-specific population) beforeenforcement of the parental notification law (1998 to 1999)and after enforcement (2000 to 2002). We did this by comparingthe rate changes among minors 15 to 17 years of age at the timeof conception (i.e., those who were subject to the law) withthose of teens 18 years of age at the time of conception (i.e.,those who were not subject to the law).

Results After enforcement of the law, abortion rates fell by11 percent among 15-year-olds (rate ratio, 0.89; 95 percentconfidence interval, 0.83 to 0.94), 20 percent among 16-year-olds(rate ratio, 0.80; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.76 to 0.85),and 16 percent among 17-year-olds (rate ratio 0.84; 95 percentconfidence interval, 0.80 to 0.87), relative to the rates among18-year-olds. Among the subgroup of minors 17.50 to 17.74 yearsof age at the time of conception (who would have been subjectto the parental notification law in early pregnancy), birthrates rose by 4 percent relative to those of teens 18.00 to18.24 years of age (rate ratio, 1.04; 95 percent confidenceinterval, 1.00 to 1.08). The adjusted odds ratio for havingan abortion after 12 weeks' gestation among minors 17.50 to17.74 years of age as compared with 18-year-olds was 1.34 (95percent confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.62).
Conclusions The Texas parental notification law was associatedwith a decline in abortion rates among minors from 15 to 17years of age. It was also associated with increased birth ratesand rates of abortion during the second trimester among a subgroupof minors who were 17.50 to 17.74 years of age at the time ofconception.

Death Penalty for Saddam?

2006-03-08T20:23:00.000-05:00

I cannot understand the absurdity of these answers. An AP poll reports that only 57 percent of Americans want the death penalty for Saddam Hussein. Some people can't seem to grasp the fact that he was a dictator who committed genocide against the Kurdish, and his own, people.

Howard Kaloogian on WND

2006-03-08T15:50:00.000-05:00

INVASION USA
Ban on wire transfers by illegals proposed
Supporters believe it will remove major incentive for crossing border

Posted: March 6, 2006
2:32 p.m. Eastern

James L. Lambert
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Howard Kaloogian

A Republican candidate for a vacated congressional seat in southern California is proposing a ban on wire transfers by illegal aliens from the U.S. to Mexico.

The plan "will remove a major incentive for illegal immigration and increase national security," said Howard Kaloogian, a well-known California activist who launched the effort to recall Gov. Gray Davis.

Kaloogian is the front-runner for the San Diego-area congressional seat held by Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who was sentenced last week to eight years in prison on corruption charges.

TIME: Interesting Abortion Commentary

2006-03-07T19:09:00.000-05:00

Nancy Gibbs, author of "When Is an Abortion Not an Abortion?" in TIME magazine, wrote an insightful article about the S.D. abortion ban. She made an excellent comment on the lack of exceptions for rape and incest in her article:

What strikes me reading the bill is that this is a case where the Purists have carried the day. If a fetus is an innocent life deserving the full protection of the law, then the circumstances of conception, no matter how tragic, are irrelevant. Punish the rapist, they say, not the baby. Even the bill’s opponents agree that it has a kind of logical integrity. If this effort succeeds it will redraw the battle lines in the 30 Years Abortion War.

I agree Nancy. The circumstances of conception are irrelevant.

South Dakota Passes Abortion Ban, Governor Signs Today

2006-03-06T14:14:00.000-05:00

From the Associated Press:

S.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago

PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds on Monday signed legislation banning almost all abortions in South Dakota.

The Legislature passed the ban late last month, focusing nationwide interest on the state as the governor decided what to do about the measure.

The law, designed to raise a direct challenge to

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, is scheduled to take effect July 1.

Under the law, doctors in South Dakota will face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion except when the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life.

Rounds issued a technical veto of a similar measure two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.

South Dakota Planned Parenthood said it planned a quick court challenge.

Michigan may ban abortion

2006-02-28T14:30:00.000-05:00

The South Dakota abortion ban sailed through the legistlature this past week and is now favorably sitting on the desk of Governor Mike rounds. This law is the most restrictive abortion ban passed since Roe v. Wade. It contains only one provision, the life of the mother, as an exception to the abortion ban. Many states wanting to follow suit.
Missouri Senator, Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, propsed a similiar ban today in his legislature today.

A movement has sprung up in Michigan to illegalize abortion, headed by the Michigan Personhead Amendment.

Georgia is also considering similiar legislation.

President Bush has commented on the South Dakota legislation, saying he disagrees in the number of exception.

Asked about the provisions in the state law, Bush replied, "Well, that, of course, is a state law, but my position has always been three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother."

Dubai Ports

2006-02-28T14:19:00.000-05:00

Dr. Jerome Corsi has some excellent things to say about the Dubai Ports agreement:

Dubai has put up a "Welcome Here" sign for the billions of dollars the millionaire mullahs and their cronies have stolen from the Iranian people. Dubai has served as a financial center and country of transit for al Qaeda terrorists, including the hijackers who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11. Dubai was one of the few countries in the Middle East to openly endorse the Taliban in Afghanistan. A group known as the Dubai Action Committee for the Support of the Intifada has worked with Islamic charitable organizations to funnel funds from the United States to Hamas. The list goes on.

However, a few supposedly conservative notables have sold out:

Sellouts.

Bill O'Rielly

Laurence Kudlow

Robert Novak

Planet's Population to hit 6.5 billion

2006-02-24T16:45:00.000-05:00

Livescience.com has calculated that the world's population will hit 6.5 billion this Saturday. While I think this statistic is irrelevant to daily life, I found the terminology used in the article quite biased:

A population milestone is about to be set on this jam-packed planet.
On Saturday, Feb. 25, at 7:16 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, the population here on this good Earth is projected to hit 6.5 billion people.

"This jam-packed planet"? Our planet is far from jam-packed. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis:

If the entire population of the world were put into the land area of Texas, each person would have an area equal to the floor space of a typical U.S. home and the population density of Texas would be about the same as Paris, France.

Doesn't sound too jam-packed to me. In fact, world population numbers are often inflated for the purpose of instituting population control programs. Pierre Chaunu, professor emeritus of the Sorbonne and member of the French Academy, says that African population figures are inflated, he doubts China's figures, and notes that in the former USSR, where there is one live birth for every 7 abortions, 292 million people have never existed. Then there's the 80-120 million killed under communism who haven't been officially recognised as being not part of their countries' population statistics.

So why the population explosion scare? Chaunu says the international agencies have to justify the huge sums spent on imposing authoritarian birth control programmes in many countries. So they claim imminent danger for the planet through 'over-population'. He also indicated that a "certain number of North American experts play with fear: fear of invasion and asphyxiation by the citizens of the third world." In plain English, they're playing the race card: there's not too many people, just too many of THEM

US Professor denies Holocaust

2006-02-24T01:16:00.000-05:00

Northwestern University Professor Arthur Butz recently supported statements made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who called the Holocaust a myth. An American professor at a respected university believes the Holocaust did not happen.

The Pennsylvania Independent reported that several Northwester factulty members have denounced Butz's stance.

Northwestern University faculty and students continue to publicly voice their opposition to Holocaust revisionist and McCormick Prof. Arthur Butz. "Butz's Holocaust denial is an affront to our humanity and our standards as scholars, and hence mandates our censure," reads a letter signed by 60 members of the newly merged Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

No wonder our colleges are so liberal. Human Events has an excellent blog about liberal bias and indoctrination on our college campuses.

Abramoff overview

2006-02-21T14:57:00.000-05:00

Dr. Marvin Olasky wrote an excellent overview of his in-depth study into the Abramoff scandal. While I'm sure this scandal pales in comparison to many other fund-shifting ventures (i.e. Ted Kennedy), the startling fact here is that Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed seem to have manipulated their relationship with Christian organizations for financial gain. You read the article, and make your own judgements.

If it is all true, one has no trouble understanding why the American people, especially church-goers, are skeptical of politicians. For a political advocate to manipulate the Christian community for the purpose of big business and personal gain, is abhorrent.

Deadly cartoons

2006-02-18T02:56:00.000-05:00

The Islamic reaction to cartoon drawings of Mohammed is startling. Consider this map supplied by Google.

I think that Flemming Rose, one of the publishers of the cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, wrote an excellent response in the Washington Post to all the critics.

The United States has an increasing Muslim population, especially in the Dearborn, Michigan area. While not every Islamic follower is bent on America's destruction, some of key figures, including Imam Mohammed Ali Elahi, the director of the Islamic House of Worship just outside of Dearborn. The Islamic House of Worship is one of the largest mosques in America.

Debbie Schlussel, a Detroit-based columnist and attorney, was the first to call attention to Elahi's ties to Iranian government officials.

“Mr. Elahi, I believe, is an agent of the government in Iran. Not only does he have sympathies for them, but he did work for them. And I believe he's still working for them,” Schlussel said. “I went to his Web site, and I found even more outrageous pictures of him with Ayatollah Khomeini, who we know held many Americans hostage for 444 days…We have pictures of him delivering prayers to the Iranian parliament. We have pictures of him with the former President of Iran, Mr. Khatami. We have pictures of him with Mr. Karrubi, who is the speaker of the house of the Iranian parliament.”

Erick Stakelbeck, a reporter for CBN news, writes about his personal interview with Imam Elahi.

Regarding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent call to wipe Israel off the map, Elahi wrote:

--"It is very clear that Mr. Ahmadinejad was not making an anti-Semitic statement."

--"The Iranian president's quip can best be understood in the context of the Declaration of Independence."

--and, "Israel must stop instigating violent conflicts in the Muslim world."

Another Elahi column described Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin as a "Palestinian spiritual leader, (who) had a heart full of love for humanity." Yet another compared the Iranian constitution to that of the United States.

Eric also has a national security watch with lots of great information here.

Hillary for '08?

2006-02-17T16:22:00.000-05:00

I realize that every person has their bad picture days. But I can't help reposting this picture of presidential hopeful Sen. Clinton. I think its rather difficult to caption the image. Perhaps her husband just told her he is really a Republican.

I'll have a contest, what do you think the caption should be? I'll post the best ones on this page in a few days.

Script for "Seconds until the next abortion"

2006-02-17T02:19:00.000-05:00

Some of you may have noticed the new abortion ticker on the side-bar. I found it on the homepage of Capitol Resource Institute. I normally find items like this trite and useless. However, when one considers the seconds until each abortion, the concept is staggering. If you have a webpage, be it xanga.com, myspace.com, or anything else, add it. May we never let the atrocious practice of abortion out of our minds until it has ended.

Code for "Seconds until the next abortion" ticker:

<tr>
       <td height="70" valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
         <form name="counter">
           <div align="center">
             <input type="text" size="5" name="d2">
             <b>seconds left until the next abortion.</b> </div>
         </form>

<!--
//
var milisec=0
var seconds=125
document.counter.d2.value='125'

function display(){
if (milisec<=0){
 milisec=9
 seconds-=1
}
if (seconds<=-1){
 milisec=0
 seconds+=1
}
else
 milisec-=1
 document.counter.d2.value=seconds+"."+milisec
 setTimeout("display()",100)
}
display()
-->
</script>

A Less on From Muslims?

2006-02-15T16:16:00.000-05:00

The entire Muhammed-mocking-cartoons topic has been commented on, argued, and rehashed many times. An excellent overview and digestion of topic is on the Legal Redux. I don't believe I can add much to the political discussion. However, perhaps there is a lesson here from the religious perspective.

I have viewed the cartoons, and I found them relatively innocuous. To be honest, most of them I didn't even understand the humor. (Although this one was hilarious, and probably the most disrespectful.) Yet, consider the outcry against them. Riots; violence; property damage; all because of simple cartoons.

How much more does America mock Christianity?

We need little reminding of NBC's attempted TV show, "Book of Daniel," which featured a pill-popping Episcopal priest and a homosexual son of a Republican. Thankfully NBC pulled it. Of course, NBC attempted to retaliate with a "Will and Grace" episode featuring Britney Spears and a cooking show called "Cruci-fixins." (This episode seemed like a bad marketing move considering how many people viewed the Passion of the Christ.) Americans cried out against the show, and NBC pulled it.

We have won many battles against anti-Christians. But, those were provacations that we could not afford to neglect. What will be our response in the minor areas?

Obviously I am not advocating the Muslim response. Our religion is different. At its core is peace, and love for your neighbor. However, we must never tire or weary from defending the Truth. We are not the only ones trying to defend a worldview of life.

Jonathan's Response to the State of the Union Address

2006-02-01T00:03:00.000-05:00

I was disappointed with the President's State of the Union (SOU) address tonight. It was ambiguous, fluffy, unsubstanitive, and vague. Comments such as, "To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another. And I will do my part." And, "We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity."

What exactly does that mean? Using that terminology begs the question, would the President say we will not confront the great issues? Or that we should not act confidently in pursuing enemies of freedom? Obviously it is enemies of freedom, not enemies of enslavement.

Here is an excellent goal:

Bush: Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal: We seek the end of tyranny in our world.

America seeks to end tyranny in the world? How exactly are we to go about this? Statements like this trivialize the SOU, and make it relatively meaningless. However, not all was lost. Bush had a few good things to say. I paid careful attention to the portion on democratic elections. (See my response to the recent Palistinean elections.) Bush said:

Bush: Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law, and protection of minorities, and strong, accountable institutions that last longer than a single vote.

The great people of Egypt have voted in a multiparty presidential election, and now their government should open paths of peaceful opposition that will reduce the appeal of radicalism.

The Palestinian people have voted in elections. And now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism and work for lasting peace.

I believe he addressed the Palestinian elections well. His call to Hamas for the recognition of Israel is a strong and laudable statement.

Iran was also a delicate topic:

Bush: The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon, and that must come to an end.

(APPLAUSE)

The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

BUSH: America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.

And, tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.

My question is, how? Iran is under the hold of Islam. It can never be free and democratic until it embraces anti-Islamic ideals such as equality, rights or life, liberty, and property. Is Bush going to send missionaries to Iran now? However, for all that cynicism, I do say that his stance against Iran gaining nuclear weapons is encouraging.

Under the topic of AIDS, Bush made an interesting observation:

Bush: A hopeful society acts boldly to fight diseases like HIV/AIDS, which can be prevented and treated and defeated.
More than a million Americans live with HIV, and half of all AIDS cases occur among African-Americans.

I ask Congress to reform and reauthorize the Ryan White Act and provide new funding to states so we end the waiting lists for AIDS medicines in America.

I question why Bush singled out African-Americans. Over half of all AIDS cases are through male-to-male sexual contact. Why didn't Bush make mention of homosexuals?

Bush also mentioned isolationism four times, and protectionism twice. He's obviously pushing for more global free trade, though it wasn't explicit. This globalist policy is absolutely abhorrent. The end result will be an "American Union," with a common security border around Mexico, the US, and Canada.

I agree with Bush about making the tax cuts permanent. He said:

Bush: Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent.

I've never met a tax cut I didn't like.

Bush also made some relatively strong statements about illegal immigration:

Bush: Keeping America competitive requires an immigration system that upholds our laws, reflects our values and serves the interests of our economy.

Our nation needs orderly and secure borders.

(APPLAUSE)

To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection.

However, he also tried to push his guest worker program:

Bush: And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty, allows temporary jobs for people who seek them legally, and reduces smuggling and crime at the border.

My question is, how doe we have a guest worker program that rejects amnesty? That's like saying we want a rainbow with only one color.

Bush also praised the fact that, "There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades." This is most definitely a good thing.

Along those same lines Bush asked for a ban on human cloning:

Bush: A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners and that recognize the matchless value of every life.
Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms; creating or implanting embryos for experiments; creating human-animal hybrids; and buying, selling or patenting human embryos.

Human life is a gift from our creator, and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.

And so ends the substance of Bush's speech. He proposed a few initiatives, but nothing too drastic or profound. With that said, God Bless America.

Quick Digestions: State of the Union

2006-01-31T23:42:00.000-05:00

A quick digest of President Bush's State of the Union Address tonight yields little. It was relatively unsubstantive. For a more thorough analysis see Jonathan's response to the State of the Union address.

In short, the positive items Bush addressed were:

-He called on Hamas to recognize Israel, to disarm, and act peacefully.
-He asked the global community to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.
-He made a relatively strong statement about securing the border and decreasing illegal immigration.
-He called on Congress to pass a ban on human cloning

The negative:

-Nothing very strong was said, it was a pretty touchy-feely goody speech with warm fuzzies.
-He used the No Child Left Behind Act as an example of success
-He subconsciously pushed for more "free trade."
-He pushed for a guest worker program

Middle Eastern Turmoil

2006-01-27T15:28:00.000-05:00

With the overwhelming Hamas majority in the new Palistinean Parliment, stability in the Middle East, especially for Israel, is a distant dream. Hamas won 76 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian government. Fatah, the majority party for 40 years, is not too happy. Hamas and Fatah are settling their disagreement by gun-battle.

(A quick side-thought: can you imagine if Republicans and Democrats setteled their agreement the same way? I guess Republicans would always win, they're the only ones who own guns.)

Hamas is a known terrorist organization whose purpose is to bring about the extermination of Israel. The Hamas "Martyrs Oath" explains, "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

This article by Reuters is quite ridiculous. It begins, "Hamas's stunning Palestinian election victory this week signals that democratic change is possible in the Arab world, even if the United States might not be pleased with the outcome of an idea it has championed."

Democratic change in the Arab world? I don't think the newsmedia grasps the reality of that election. A terrorist organization is the dominating power in the Palestinian government. This result is a perfect example of a how true democracy is flawed. No wonder James Madison said,

Democracy is the most vile form of government ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

2006-01-23T15:16:00.000-05:00

Sonoma County abortion opponents rally in SR

Group revives effort for parental notification measure

By MARTIN ESPINOZA
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Sonoma County abortion foes rallied Sunday afternoon in Santa Rosa's Old Courthouse Square, kicking off local petition efforts to resurrect last year's defeated state ballot initiative requiring parental notification for minors seeking abortions.

Also speaking at the rally was Jonathan Krive, a former Santa Rosa Junior College student who won the 2004 NRLC-sponsored National Right to Life Oratory Contest.

Krive, the current vice president of the High School Conservative Clubs of America, compared abortions in the past 33 years to the Holocaust.

"Abortion is America's Holocaust, but of greater magnitude," Krive said at the rally. "Forty-six million unborn babies have been aborted."

Krive acknowledged that many people, including Holocaust survivors and their descendents, would find such a statement offensive. But if fetuses are human beings, he said, then abortion is genocide.

Read the rest of the story here.

Abortion is America's Holocaust

2006-01-23T00:21:00.000-05:00

If the unborn are human, and all human life is equally valid, then 46 million unborn babies are the victims of the greatest genocide in the Western Hemisphere.

I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. back in February 2005. I was struck by the atrocious ideologies of Adolf Hitler. He believed in the Darwinian notion that all life, as evolved, only has instrumental value. He classified all humans into two categories: superior, or inferior. This idea stripped human life of its inherent value. No longer was a human valuable simply because the life was human. Human value was now based on instrumental worth: how much an individual can accomplish.

Fast forward 50 years. Planned Parenthood's mantra is that "every child is a wanted child." So what is its proposed solution to the unborn children who are unwanted? Abortion.

Planned Parenthood has proposed a Final Solution, and it is every bit as heinous and morally repugnant as the Holocaust. But somehow America does not realize this. Simply because abortion goes on behind closed doors, in a sanitized room, does this make the crime any less heinous? Surely out of sight has been out of mind. But what if we lived in Germay during the Holocaust...and we knew about the concentration camps...we knew about Auschwitz. Well, we know about abortion clinics.

Roberts dissents for the first time on the SCOTUS

2006-01-17T15:39:00.000-05:00

Chief Justice John Roberts, for the first time in his three month tenure on the Supreme Court, dissented with the main court decision to uphold the Oregon Death With Dignity Act (ODWDA). The decision was 6-3, with Justices Clarence, Scalia, and Roberts dissenting. See my post at the Legal Reduction.

Alito plays politician

2006-01-12T00:15:00.000-05:00

I have been watching the Alito confirmation hearings and have been mostly impressed. However, I was dissapointed in some of Alito's answers, see my post at the Legal Reduction: http://ledux.blogspot.com/

Cause of Death: Gender

2006-01-10T20:17:00.000-05:00

AFP reported today that, "Around 10 million female foetuses may have been aborted in India over the past two decades because of ultrasound sex screening and a traditional preference for boys, according to a study published online in The Lancet."

Lifenews.com noted that, "India's top doctor's group is rejecting the analysis by the British medical journal Lancet saying that as many as 10 million sex-selection abortions may have occurred in India since ultrasounds were able to detect the gender of an unborn child approximately 20 years ago."

“At the same time, the physicians group agreed that the use of modern medical technology has been used to further prejudices against girl babies.

“Dr. Narendra Saini, spokesman for the Indian Medical Association, says that the use of ultrasound to detect the gender of an unborn child for purposes of an abortion has waned since the Indian government started a crackdown on it in 2001."

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) warned that infanticide or abortion was driving India towards a gender imbalance with alarming social consequences.

Ironically feminists are the biggest proponents of abortion. Yet, abortion tends to kill more girls than boys, especially in third world nations.

In the introduction to Dickens' A Christmas Carol G.K. Chesterton wrote, “The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him whether he is the surplus population, or if he is not, how he knows he is not.”

PETA: People Embodying the Asinine

2005-12-31T19:07:00.000-05:00

I recently watched a protest video against Kentucky Friend Chicken, hosted by Pamela Anderson of PETA. (Yes, it’s the same Pam Anderson.) Besides being absolutely hilarious, I found the video phenomenally ironic and shallow. But then again, I guess I can’t expect too much from they Baywatch star.

She, (or PETA through her), made many absurd claims; here is a sampling:

“KFC treats these chickens like meat machines, not animals.”

What is the difference? Animals are raised for me. Did the animals ever protest their treatment? Did they ever call PETA and ask for help? Did they form a union and protest their conditions? Of course not, because they are ANIMALS. Besides, the chickens are going to die soon anyway.

“[The chickens] never feel sunlight on their backs, nor earth beneath their feet.”

The chickens never requested sunlight or earth. How does PETA know that the chickens want sunlight and earth? It seems that PETA is imposing its environmental utopia on the chickens without asking the chickens first.

“The chickens are forced to live in feces filled sheds.”

PETA should teach the chickens how to flush the toilet. I’m sure if the chickens would keep a tidy stall, they wouldn’t have to live in such a dirty environment.

“Chickens are inquisitive, gentle animals. Chickens form friendships with each other. They are as intelligent as dogs or cats. They love their young.”

This statement is my personal favorite. Read that first line again, “Chickens are inquisitive, gentle animals.” PETA uses the word inquisitive to describe a chicken. This mix of sophistication and dinner food is completely absurd.

When was the last time a chicken played fetch, or came on command, or was used as a service animal for the blind. When Pam Anderson can show us a seeing-eye chicken, I’ll buy into “chicken intelligence.”

Chickens love their young so much they EAT THEM. My family used to own over 20 chickens. We kept them for eggs. The chickens will peck their own eggs if a human being does not remove the egg. Perhaps chickens like scrambled eggs.

I'll post more about PETA; but consider the following quotations by PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk:

“There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation. [emphasis added]”
— “Animal Rights 2002” convention, 6/30/02

“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.”
— "National Animal Rights Convention", 6/27/97

“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.”
— Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86

Infinity

2005-12-25T22:12:00.000-05:00

Does infinity exist?

During a game of Pictionary, one of my teammates was challenged to demonstrate the concept of infinity. Naturally she drew the horizontal 8, the symbol for infinity. Two things occurred: first, we argued as to whether it was legal for her to draw a symbol, but the argument was unimportant; the second, a friend noted that the infinity symbol is actually a number. It is a symbol for a number that does not exist. This innocent remark sparked the thought, "What defines the existence of a number?"

Infinity does not exist in reality, yet, does any number exist outside of our mind? Obviously the concept of infinity is far beyond the understanding of this author. Mathmaticians have struggled with this concept for centuries. However, even a simple understanding begs the question: if numbers exist by human definition, does not infinity exist due to the human postulation creating infinity? Perhaps this argument is purely ontological. However, I propose that the concept exists prior to human recognition rather than because of human labeling.

While one cannot "quantify" infinity, for quantification would defy the very concept of infinity, it must exist if humans can conceive of it. The logic of this argument is also used in the ontological argument for God, which I will not delve into at this point (refer to the link, it is quite clear.)

So at the end of this postulation, consider the question: does exterior reality determine the existence of certain concepts, or is it our discovery of concepts, and then human labeling that bring them into existence? The difference is finite, but it does exist; at least it does in my mind.

Happy Holy Days

2005-12-23T21:36:00.000-05:00

As Christmas quickly approaches, businesses and schools rush to become politically correct and inclusive of all holiday celebrations. But by being "inclusive," politically correct gurus end up alienating the majority of Americans.

John Stewart on The Daily Show, mocked the movement to preserve Christmas noting that, "because we have two holidays within a small period of time, the word 'holiday' becomes plural, which, in the English language, necessitates an 's'. Hence the use of 'happy holidays'."

This plural is obviously true. And if one prefers saying "happy holidays", then so be it. However, stores and schools are not simply encouraging the use of "happy holidays," they directly prohibit the words "Merry Christmas." Instead, they promote a commercialized day, full of self-gratification.

Ironically enough, even the word holiday comes from the middle english "holy day." So "happy holidays" entails religious meaning. Perhaps someone should notify the ACLU.

Christmas, a Time for Censorship?

2005-11-28T18:56:00.000-05:00

As Christmas quickly approaches, businesses, schools, and the ACLU scramble to censor this wonderful holiday. Stores such as Wal-Mart, Lowe's, Sears/Kmart, Costco and Kohl's have handed down corporate policies prohibiting employees from saying “Merry Christmas.” Public schools across the country have banned students from singing Christmas Carols, and dozens more have caved to ACLU threats to sue if the school does not drop the term Christmas altogether.

Who gets offended by hearing “Merry Christmas?” Is anyone so sensitive that their feelings are hurt by those two words, which for years have conveyed a well wishing of Christmas spirit?

Ironically, not only do these policies pander to extremist-liberals, but the majority of Americans actually reject this absurd idea. Consider that 90 percent of Americans recognize Christmas as the birthday of Jesus Christ (Gallup, 2000). In fact, 88 percent of Americans are more likely to wish someone they just met “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays” (CNN/USA Today/Gallup, 2004).

On November 10, 2003 the Colorado ACLU, in a letter joined by the Anti-Defamation League, alleged that, "Jewish students no longer feel safe or welcome at the Elbert County Charter School" because the school gave students a “Christmas holiday.” The letter demands that the school ban all references to Christmas in the school’s annual holiday program, including secular songs such as Jingle Bells.

In December 2004, Plano Independent School District School officials went so far as to prohibit students from wearing red and green at their ‘winter break’ parties because they claimed they were Christmas colors. Even the plates and napkins had to be white.

Within the past few years, liberal organizations such as the ACLU have initiated over nine lawsuits against school districts to purge the use of Christmas. They claim a violation of the so-called “separation of church and state.”

While I don’t have time to get into a detailed history of this absurd doctrine, realize that the words “separation,” “church,” and “state” never appear anywhere in the First Amendment! The Supreme Court has acknowledged the government’s longstanding recognition of holidays with religious significance, such as Christmas. Congress has proclaimed Christmas to be a legal public holiday. Guidelines issued by U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley (under President Clinton) state “students therefore have the same right to engage in…religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activity.”

Stores and schools are disenfranchising the majority of Americans by bowing to the minority who is supposedly offended by the use of “Merry Christmas.”

Think about what Christmas brings to our society; it is such a wonderful holiday. Family and friends unite together around a charitable spirit. Stories such as Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, or It’s a Wonderful Life, show how even those with little have much to be thankful for. And if there is a God, and Jesus Christ is His son, then wouldn’t it be wonderful to know that Christmas is the celebration of His birth? Just something to think about…

In the meantime, I wish you a very Merry Christmas.

McCarthyism and Communism

2005-11-11T16:13:00.000-05:00

The Santa Rosa Junior College sponsors lectures by notable intellectuals. I commented on Peter Laufer's "The cases for opening the Mexican-American Border" lecture. On October 17, the SRJC sponsored another lecture titled, "McCarthyism, higher education, and the new assault on academic freedom." This is the article that I have submitted to our school newspaper for publication as an opinion piece:

In another example of blatantly partisan bias, the SRJC Arts and Lectures Series, the Sonoma County Chapter of the ACLU, and a local union, SRJC/CFT Local 1946, hosted Ellen Schrecker to deliver the lecture, “McCarthyism, higher education, and the new assault on academic freedom.” (The sponsor list alone casts suspicion on the objectivity of the lecture.) In addition to Schrecker, three teachers who were targeted during the “Red Star incident” also presented their opinions October 17 in Newman Auditorium.

I have to give some credit to Schrecker for not completely hiding the historical record. She readily admitted that in the 1940s and 50s, “the communist threat was a reality.” However, she did not fully explore that reality. Before addressing the rest of the lecture, allow me to set the record straight about Senator McCarthy.

The truth about McCarthy will sound insane, because it has been the liberals’ goal to make him sound insane. However, McCarthy’s campaign was far more limited than is portrayed. He only investigated federal governmentemployees, between 1950 and 1953, in the Senate Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations, the express mandate of which was to investigate the federal government.

McCarthy didn’t suddenly appear on the scene with a witch-hunt. In fact, the investigation of Un-American (communist) activities had begun long before McCarthy even came to office. The infamous “Smith Act” was passed in 1940, six years before McCarthy was elected to the Senate. The act, which criminalized “teaching and advocating the violent overthrow of the government,” was written by a Democratic House and Senate; signed into law by FDR, and enforced by Harry Truman.

But was McCarthy searching for communists that didn’t exist? Consider the Venona project, something your liberal professors won’t tell you about. Throughout the history of the USSR, from World War II until President Reagan brought it down in 1991, an intelligence division of the army decrypted thousands of Soviet cables in a secret operation called the Venona project. Declassified in 1995, the cables confirmed every single allegation McCarthy made, including those against liberal darling Alger Hiss. The Soviets specifically named him as a spy in their communications.

However, Schrecker, and probably most of your teachers at the SRJC, continue to demonize McCarthy not realizing that his service to this country was in bringing the atrocities of communism back into the spotlight.

Consider: Joseph Stalin murdered over 43 million people in the name of communism; Mao Tse Tung murdered over 38 million Chinese through forced starvation because he was a Marxist; In Cambodia, 2 million dead at the hands of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge; Vietnam, 850,000 sacrificed to the greater glory of Ho Chi Minh; Ethiopia, tens of thousands slaughtered during Mengistu Haile Mariam's "Red Terror". Communism is a murderous ideology.

You didn’t hear these facts at the lecture. Martin Bennet and others were too busy demonizing the so-called “anti-communism tactics of the right.”

Post modernism is bad when it allows contradictory views

Ironically, during the lecture, both Terry Mucaire and Joyce Johnson questioned the application of post-modernism. Post-modernism asserts that no view holds the correct answer; we should tolerate all views. However, the thought of tolerating conservative principles apparently frightened both of them.

“If my students can simply dismiss what I say as opinion, what’s the point of education?” Johnson asked.

According to Bennet, “Colleges provide an alternative source of information for students who are disillusioned by the [Bush] Administration.”

So the principles emerge in a two-step model: One, a teacher gives facts, not opinions that can be dismissed. Two, the facts given are to correct those who agree with the Bush Administration in any facet.

And if students continue to disagree with you, a teacher should move to step three: sponsor a lecture where only one side is heard and the opposition is silenced, such as one called, “McCarthyism, higher education, and the new assault on academic freedom.”

Norma McCorvey

2005-11-04T03:05:00.000-05:00

I listened to "Jane Roe" speak tonight; real name: Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade (1973). She addressed the audience of 400 who attended a banquet sponsored by the Pregnancy Counseling Center of Santa Rosa, California.

I have spoken on abortion for several years, but I was overwhelmed to meet the woman who, in a sense, started it all. Two emotional premises confronted me: This is the woman. The woman responsible for starting Roe v. Wade. But the other thought was, this woman now speaks the truth. Not only is a Norma McCorvey a pro-life advocate, she is also a Christian.

Her transformation was amazing. She went from saying: "I had a reputation to protect, after all. As the plaintiff in the infamous Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, my life was inextricably tied up with abortion. Though I had never had one, abortion was the sun around which my life orbited. I once told a reporter, "This issue is the only thing I live for. I live, eat, breathe, think everything about abortion."

To now saying: "I'm one hundred percent sold out to Jesus and one hundred percent pro-life," I like to say. "No exceptions. No compromise."

Her ministry, Crossing Over Ministry, published the following:

"Her story cannot be written off - because once the whole story is known, the truth shines forth. Norma McCorvey's story is truly a miracle. Her story is not as simple as from, to; her story is one that is full of hardship, darkness, and hate - but ultimately her story is one of triumph.

"Poor, pregnant, and desperate, Norma McCorvey fell into the hands of two young and ambitious lawyers. They were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion, and Norma signed on. Little did she know that her signature would one day make her an international figure.

"Eventually, Norma's worst nightmare came true. The controversial pro-life group, Operation Rescue, moved in next door to Norma's abortion clinic. A little girl's affection, a mother's trust, and a gregarious man's friendship surprised Norma, and eventually led her to consider the love, forgiveness, and hope offered by Jesus Christ.

"Norma's ensuing conversion shocked the world. The picture of her baptism made headlines in international newspapers. "The poster child for abortion just jumped off the poster," one pro-lifer said, "and into the arms of Jesus Christ."

Well Done Mr. President...

2005-11-01T02:08:00.000-05:00

The President has picked an excellent nominee for Sandra Day O'Conner's position: Samuel A. Alito. Alito has a prestigous track record, and is dedicated to original interpretation of the constitution. The Democrats have deemed him "radical" and "extreme right." Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT said Bush is bowing to "extreme factions" of the Republican party. Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV insulted the competence of any political official, saying, "word is that they could not find a woman conservative enough to meet the demands of this radical right wing that this White House is so in tune with."

Ironically, Democrats never had a problem with a Democrat president bowing to the extreme factions of their party. In fact, Democrat presidents have been "party line" with each nomination. Republicans could learn a thing or two from the justices Democrat presidents have put in office.

Democrat presidential nominations:

Stephen Breyer, an extreme liberal. (Clinton)
Ruth BaterGinsburg, she cites international law,which should be considered an impeachable offense. (Clinton)

Republican presidential nominations:

Clarence Thomas, a strong conservative. (H.W. Bush)
David Souter, an extreme liberal. (H.W. Bush)
Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote, but mostly liberal. (Reagan)
Sandra Day O'Conner, again a swing vote, definitely not conservative. (Reagan)
Antonin Scalia, a strong conservative. (Reagan)
John Paul Stevens, a mainstream liberal. (Ford)

Not suprisingly the New York Times focused on abortion again. The headline, "Abortion Case May Be Central in Confirmation." Why is abortion a central theme to a confirmation? The Constitution calls for the Senate to confirm a judicial nominee based on his or her abilities and views. But liberals are making Roe v. Wade a litmus test. This atrocious doctrine has become their sacred cow.

Noam Chomsky...

2005-10-27T01:10:00.000-04:00

My Mass Comm teacher showed a video last week titled "The myth of the liberal media." Hosted by Noam Chomsky, Ed Herman, and Justin Lewis, it was one hour of complaining that "liberal progressivism" (aka communism) didn't get enough coverage in the media. My teacher challenged me to find 10 examples of liberal bias in the media in the past week, which I compiled with ease. However, my greater discovery was on the background of Noam Chomsky, anarchist, neo-Marxist, and possible neo-Nazi. This man is a respected intellectual in American society, yet his writings are completely hypocritical. His message is singular: anything that is anti-American. The following excerpts were taken from an "The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky" written by Keith Windschuttle:

On Noam Chomsky's political views and contradictions over communism:

For all his in-principle disdain of communism, however, when it came to the real world of international politics Chomsky turned out to endorse a fairly orthodox band of socialist revolutionaries. They included the architects of communism in Cuba, Fidel Castro and Che Guevera, as well as Mao Tse-tung and the founders of the Chinese communist state. Chomsky told a forum in New York in December, 1967 that in China "one finds many things that are really quite admirable." He believed the Chinese had gone some way to empowering the masses along lines endorsed by his own libertarian socialist principles:

China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting and positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.

At the 1967 New York forum he acknowledged both "the mass slaughter of landlords in China" and "the slaughter of landlords in North Vietnam" that had taken place once the communists came to power. His main objective, however, was to provide a rationalization for this violence, especially that of the National Liberation Front then trying to take control of South Vietnam. Chomsky revealed he was no pacifist.

I don't accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on thisÂand I think we shouldÂwe have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.

On Noam Chomsky's hypocrisy over Cambodia and terrorism:

Chomsky was this regime's most prestigious and most persistent Western apologist. Even as late as 1988, when they were forced to admit in their book Manufacturing Consent that Pol Pot had committed genocide against his own people, Chomsky and Herman still insisted they had been right to reject the journalists and authors who had initially reported the story. The evidence that became available after the Vietnamese invasion of 1979, they maintained, did not retrospectively justify the reports they had criticized in 1977.

They were still adamant that the United States, who they claimed started it all, bore the brunt of the blame. In short, Chomsky still refused to admit how wrong he had been over Cambodia.

In his response to September 11, he claimed that no matter how appalling the terrorists' actions, the United States had done worse. He supported his case with arguments and evidence just as empirically selective and morally duplicitous as those he used to defend Pol Pot. On September 12, 2001, Chomsky wrote:

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, ClintonÂs bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people.

This Sudanese incident was an American missile attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, where the CIA suspected Iraqi scientists were manufacturing the nerve agent VX for use in chemical weapons contracted by the Saddam Hussein regime. The missile was fired at night so that no workers would be there and the loss of innocent life would be minimised. The factory was located in an industrial area and the only apparent casualty at the time was the caretaker.

He told a reporter from salon.com that, rather than an "unknown" number of deaths in Khartoum, he now had credible statistics to show there were many more Sudanese victims than those killed in New York and Washington: ÂThat one bombing, according to estimates made by the German Embassy in Sudan and Human Rights Watch, probably led to tens of thousands of deaths." However, this claim was quickly rendered suspect. One of his two sources, Human Rights Watch, wrote to salon.com the following week denying it had produced any such figure. Its communications director said: ÂIn fact, Human Rights Watch has conducted no research into civilian deaths as the result of US bombing in Sudan and would not make such an assessment without a careful and thorough research mission on the ground."

Chomsky's second source had done no research into the matter either. He was Werner Daum, German ambassador to Sudan from 1996 to 2000 who wrote in the Harvard International Review, Summer 2001. Despite his occupation, Daum's article was anything but diplomatic.

On Noam Chomsky's hypocrisy through standards:

Chomsky himself has consistently demonstrated an inability to abide by his own standards. Among his most provocative recent demands are for American political and military leaders to be tried as war criminals. He has often couched this in terms of the failure by the United States to apply the same standards to itself as it does to its enemies.

For instance, America tried and executed the remaining World War Two leaders of Germany and Japan, but failed to try its own personnel for the "war crime" of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. Chomsky claims the American bombing of dams during the Korean War was "a huge war crime just like racist fanaticism" but the action was praised at home. "That's just a couple of years after they hanged German leaders who were doing much less than that."

The worst current example, he claims, is American support for Israel:

Virtually everything that Israel is doing, meaning the United States and Israel are doing, is illegal, in fact, a war crime. And many of them they defined as "grave breaches," that is, serious war crimes. This means that the United States and Israeli leadership should be brought to trial.

Yet Chomsky's moral perspective is completely one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented.

I thought the article was a devastating critique of Noam Chomsky. To think that he supported communist China despite its slaughter of over 20 million of its own citizens through forced starvation. If he is so in favor of China, perhaps he should move there and experience it first hand. My mother, an immigrant from mainland China, knows first hand of the disastrous effects of communism. And this is what professors teach in American classrooms.

Liberal Paper: Conservative Endorsement

2005-10-19T04:26:00.000-04:00

I write for my school newspaper, the Oak Leaf. Like every other classroom on campus, the students and teacher are predominantly liberal. As a conservative, I am far outnumbered. However, being able to articulate my viewpoints has gained me the respect of my peers as both a writer and a thinker. Because I present my views in a logical manner, as versus a rash diatribe, the Oak Leaf has printed some very conservative opinion articles that I have written. Last week, the editorial staff discussed some articles on the seven propositions facing California citizens on November 8. I willingly wrote opinion pieces on each of them, submitting the package as a conservative column. To my surprise, my editors agreed with my position on Proposition 73, the parental notification initiative.

The result: the Oak Leaf is going to endorse Proposition 73 with the following article that I authored.

Common Sense Lawmaking: An Editorial Endorsement

By Jonathan Krive

In another example of absurd lawmaking in California, a child needs a parent'’s permission to visit a tanning salon, get a tattoo, or have her teeth cleaned. But, an older boyfriend or school employee can take a child to have an abortion performed on her without either of her parents even knowing.

Proposition 73 restores common sense parental rights by requiring a physician to notify the parents of any minor who requests an abortion, except in medical emergency or with judicial waiver. A young girl who is pregnant needs the support of her parents, not a stranger who profits from abortions.

Parents cannot provide the necessary follow-up care when they don't know their 13-year-old daughter had an abortion. If a child has any type of surgery, parents are key to healthy recovery. Yet, with no knowledge of the abortion, a parent cannot help a child with its many medical side effects, which include: abdominal pain and cramping, spotting and bleeding, sometimes even placental, uteral, or cervical infection or rupture. Post-abortion situations can be life threatening, and only if a parent knows about the cause of these problems can they take steps to save their own daughter’s life.

Abortion is a traumatic experience. It is not a simple medical procedure; it is an extremely invasive supposedly last resort operation that can often devastate a girl emotionally. In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that over 30% of women surveyed felt deep emotional depression.. (“The Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.) It requires a parent to help cope with feelings such as those. Without knowledge of an abortion, a parent may mistake post-abortion depression or suicidal emotions as non-life threatening. If suicidal depression threatens a daughterÃ’s life, a parent needs to know about the abortion.

This law has been enacted in over 30 states. Those state’s' experience proves that parental involvement laws reduce the number of pregnancies and abortions without harm to minors. Keep in mind this is not parental consent, only parental notification. The United States Supreme Court has approved this type of proposition in the past; it does not violate the so-called "“right to privacy."” But it does restore parental rights to protect their own children. We say yes on Proposition 73.

Evolution losing ground to intelligence

2005-10-13T01:41:00.000-04:00

Assemblyman Ray Haynes issued a brilliant "Monday Morning Memorandum" on Intelligent Design this week. I will post the entire article, however, I want to focus on one paticularily profound thought:

"...science comes up with a theory, which he calls a paradigm, develops tests based on those paradigms to discover the facts to prove the paradigms. When the tests, however, come up with facts that dispute the paradigms, anomalies as he calls them, the paradigm begins to break down, and a "paradigm shift" occurs. Some in academics cling desperately to the old paradigm, but soon, all science begins to reject the old paradigm, and a new ÂtheoryÂ of science replaces the old.

"Evolution is reaching the point of a paradigm shift. As scientific and technical knowledge advances, new tests based on evolution are being developed, except these new tests are developing facts that cannot be explained by the theory of evolution. The response of the defenders of evolution in some cases is to attack those who question the theory, rather than seek to develop facts to prove their critics wrong. Evolution, in some quarters, is accepted as an article of faith, and those who donÂt accept the faith are figuratively burned at the stake as "scientific" heretics."

Evolutions do not refute the claims of Creationism, they simply define the supernatural out of the debate. The underlying paradigm they assert is based on philosophical naturalism:
Paul Kurtz, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University at Buffalo He is founder and chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal CSICOP), the Council for Secular Humanism, the Center for Inquiry and Prometheus Book. He defines philosophical naturalism as such:

"Naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. 1. The reliance on scientific method, grounded in empiricism, as the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world. 2. The inadmissiof they ofthe supernatural or transcendent into its metaphysical scheme"

Obviously to accept the supernatural would be a deviation from naturalistic explanations. However, this definition of science does not legitimately refute the claims of intelligent design.

MONDAY MORNING MEMORANDUM

By Assemblyman Ray Haynes

October 10, 2005

Intelligent Design?

A new debate has begun over the question of the origin of the species, and our Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O'Connell, has weighed in on the subject. Last week he announced that California schools would never teach the theory of "intelligent design." No mater what the science says, he proclaimed, California would always teach evolution.

I can understand how anyone who has spent most of his life in government, like O'Connell, would come to the conclusion that creation is an act of pure random chance, since most government action is purely random, and largely unsuccessful. Most government programs spend eternity crashing into peoples' lives, occasionally ruining them, mostly annoying them, and generally costing them money unnecessarily. There is certainly no intelligent design in government.

Science, however, is beginning to question the origin of the species. The problem with evolution is that, although it purports to be a complete theory about how we came about, it cannot explain some of the things that science is discovering about how we work. Evolution says more complex biological systems "evolved" from less complex systems, so, as we study the more complex systems, we should be able to figure out from which less complex systems the more complex systems evolved.

But we can't. In fact, some scientists have discovered the problem of "irreducible complexity," which essentially means that no less complex system can be found from the complex system being studied.

In his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn talks about how scientific theory is explained. Most of us are taught from high school that science develops tests to study the facts, comes up with a theory about how those facts relate to each other, and that is how knowledge is developed. Kuhn disputed this explanation. He claimed that science comes up with a theory, which he calls a paradigm, develops tests based on those paradigms to discover the facts to prove the paradigms. When the tests, however, come up with facts that dispute the paradigms, anomalies as he calls them, the paradigm begins to break down, and a "paradigm shift" occurs. Some in academics cling desperately to the old paradigm, but soon, all science begins to reject the old paradigm, and a new "theory" of science replaces the old.

Evolution is reaching the point of a paradigm shift. As scientific and technical knowledge advances, new tests based on evolution are being developed, except these new tests are developing facts that cannot be explained by the theory of evolution. The response of the defenders of evolution in some cases is to attack those who question the theory, rather than seek to develop facts to prove their critics wrong. Evolution, in some quarters, is accepted as an article of faith, and those who donÂt accept the faith are figuratively burned at the stake as "scientific" heretics.

I thought we had moved beyond hemlock, prisons, and witch hunts in academia with the passing of Socrates, or the jailing of Galileo. Unfortunately, evolution has become a sacred belief, with Darwin's writings as the scripture, and those who question the church of evolution are treated as heathens. Shouldn't science be about discussing and testing alternative theories of nature and natural occurrences? Do we simply reject a fact of nature because it doesn't fit into our "world view" of how nature is, or should be, organized? Certainly Jack O'Connell thinks so. No longer the Superintendent of Public Instruction, he has chosen to become the High Priest of Darwinian Evolution.

I thought our left wing friends were the chief proponent of an open-minded approach to education. This latest attack on the critics proves them to be exactly what they are, doctrinaire censors of open scientific discourse, true heirs of the collectivist ideology they promote and protect.

Irony from a Marxist/Freudian pyschoanalyst

2005-10-11T02:33:00.000-04:00

Erich Fromm was a Marxist, a humanist, a follower of Freud, and mostly wrong about the human being. However, as I was studying him, (because my liberal nihilist professor was teaching Fromm), I found a very interesting observation.

Erich Fromm, like many others, believed that we have needs that go far beyond the basic, physiological ones that some people, like Freud and many behaviorists, think explain all of our behavior. He calls these human needs, in contrast to the more basic animal needs. And he suggests that the human needs can be expressed in one simple statement: The human being needs to find an answer to his existence.

Fromm says that the major purpose of culture is to help us answer this question. All cultures, he says, are religions, in trying to provide us with the answer. Some, of course, do so better than others.

A more negative way of expressing this need is to say that we need to avoid insanity, and he defines neurosis as an effort to satisfy the need for answers that doesn't work for us. He says that every neurosis is a sort of private religion, one we turn to when our culture no longer satisfies.

Fromm's point is excellent: we all have a sort of religion, i.e. a worldview or frame of reference. Even secularism, ironically enough, is a frame of reference and therefore a "private religion." In the end, its not a question of religion versus science, but what religion is the best religion to ascribe to.

Stem Cell Research...

2005-10-07T01:58:00.000-04:00

Some thoughts from an informative speech I am giving tomorrow at a debate tournament on stem cell research:

Almost all stem cell medical benefits have been derived from a technology that has until now, been mostly ignored: adult stem cells. According to The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics in a report released July 19, 2005, adult stem cells have benefited patients with over 65 types of diseases and conditions.

The Korea Times reported November 26, 2004 in the article "Korean Scientists Succeed in Stem Cell Therapy" that a spinal cord patient is now walking for the first time in 19 years. A team of Korean scientists headed by Dr. Song Chang-hun transplanted stem cells from umbilical cord blood to a 37-year-old female patient. The patient's lower limbs were paralyzed after an accident in 1985 damaged her lower back and hips. Afterward she spent her life in bed or in a wheelchair. However, after 25 days of stem cell treatment she can now walk on her own.

Embryo stem cells are very potent, but also very unstable. Maureen L. Condic, who is an Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, explains that, "there are profound immunological issues associated with putting cells derived from one human being into the body of another. The same compromises and complications associated with organ transplant hold true for embryonic stem cells." In her article, "The Basics About Stem Cells" published in First Things journal, she also points out that, "Even in very small numbers, embryonic stem cells produce teratomas, rapid growing and frequently lethal tumors."

On the other hand, when scientists and doctors use adult stem cells they simply assist and amplify what happens in our bodies all the time: we have stem cells throughout our bodies waiting to be activated and told what cell types to replace (e.g. old blood cells) or what tissues to fix.

With Alan Keyes

2005-10-04T00:59:00.000-04:00

With Alan Keyes at a rally for Jim Gilchrist

Government, the ultimate credit card thief

2005-09-29T21:18:00.000-04:00

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-New Orleans, proposed a $250 billion aid package.

That would bring total government spending on Hurricane Katrina to over $320 billion. Where is the government getting all of this money? Deficit spending. However, this phrase is just a clever name for appropriating money that does not exist. It's as if the government is putting all this money on a credit card - the name on the credit card: U.S. Taxpayers.

Deficit spending will be paid for one of two ways:

1) An increase in taxes.
2) Increased inflation due to more U.S. dollars in the economy.

Don't let Congress and the Bush Administration fool you, this money is coming out of your pocket.

Profound thought on liberals

2005-09-28T22:58:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine recently emailed this quotation to me. It contains profound insight into the liberal ideology:

"'That liberalism may be a tendency towards something very different from itself, is a possibility in its nature . . . . It is a movement not so much defined by its end, as by its starting point; away from, rather than towards something definite.' What liberalism has constantly moved away from are the constraints on personal liberty imposed by religion, morality, law, family, and community." (Bork, Robert H., Slouching Towards Gomorrah, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., 1996 p. 61 quoting Eliot, T.S., Christianity and Culture: The Idea of a Christian Society & Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1940, 1949,) p. 12.)

The question: if constraints imposed by religion and morality continue to loosen to due to societal pressure, will liberalism continue on its downward trek of continual deviance?

The Minutemen

2005-09-28T00:33:00.000-04:00

Chris Simcox, organizer of the Minuteman Project, addressed the Eagle Forum National Council this past weekend in St. Louis. While I have paid some attention to the Minutemen, I was amazed at what I heard from Mr. Simcox: The government has failed to secure our borders in an egregious way.

Mr. Simcox first became interested in the border issue during an extended hike through a park in southern Arizona. He describes in the story a close encounter with several illegal border crossers.

"I heard the noise of many footsteps. Now, I was way out in the middle of a park, and I knew it wasn't the Boy Scouts, so I ducked behind a rock. A group of almost 70 Mexicans with backpacks came walking through. During the three days I was there, I saw almost 350 people crossing the border including caravans of trucks escorted by heavily armed Mexican paramilitary. I went to the park ranger and asked, 'who are these people?' He replied, 'Those are just illegal migrants looking for a better life. And the others are drug traffickers. Just don't bother them and you'll be ok."

That was three years ago. Now, Mr. Simcox has helped organize a citizen's effort to help the border patrol in securing the border. Contrary to the liberal medic's portrayal of this project, the Minutemen are not vigilantes. Most of the 879 concerned citizens who stationed themselves on the border sat in lawn chairs with a cell phone and binoculars. Spaced out at static observation points every 2 miles, they reduced attempted border crossings by 64% over a 27 mile stretch of Arizona border.

Mr. Simcox himself is a stark contrast to the redneck-shotgun-toting-Billy Bob that the media describes him as. Dressed in a white button down, his clean-shaven face showed the mentality of a concerned father of his two children.

For those who may think I am misportraying the media, all of the students in my speech and debate class today at the SRJC said the Minutemen were "vigilantes" and "taking the law into their own hands." However, none of them have taken the time to actually research this citizens group. I've met Chris, and I can say the Minuteman Project is an excellent organization.

airport security; border insecurity

2005-09-26T22:05:00.000-04:00

I traveled this weekend to St. Louis for the Eagle Forum National Convention. As a frequent long-distance traveler, I was prepared for the airport security routine: "take off your shoes...take off your belt..." The check was quite thorough, and I am beginning to appreciate airport security. However, as I was gathering my bag that just exited the little luggage carwash, two ironies struck me:

1. The US government goes to great lengths to provide security against terrorists in airports. If you think about it, TSA treats everyone as a suspected terrorist. While this attitude is not wrong, its an interesting point to ponder. However, the US government continually neglects the security of our borders. If we had even half of the security on the border that we do in airports, the rate of illegal immigration, drug and slave trafficking, and terrorist possibility would plummet.

2. I saw a TSA agent scanning senior citizen with a metal detector. This elderly man obviously posed no threat to airport security; he was probably even a veteran. Yet TSA forced him to stand on that little black mat with his arms spread as they tried to determine whether or not he was a terrorist.

-Societal ironies-

School Lecture: Open Borders = Open Bias

2005-09-26T00:05:00.000-04:00

As a student at the Santa Rosa Junior College, I encounter all forms of liberal indoctrination. One such lecture proposed open borders with Mexico. After listening to a pathetic appeal for this treasonous position, I decided to issue a public reaction. I will be publishing the following opinion piece in my school newspaper, The Oak Leaf:

I attended a lecture that my school, the Santa Rosa Junior College, hosted on September 12 titled, "Wetback Nation: The Case for Opening the Mexican-American Border." It was blatantly partisan. While opening the border is will only exacerbate the problem of homeland insecurity, why is the SRJC using taxpayer money to fund political lectures? If it is going to invite political lecturers, it should invite them from both sides.

The SRJC Arts and Lecture series invited Peter Laufer to promote an open border with Mexico. During the lecture Laufer bashed the Bush Administration and US Border Patrol. Regardless of whether you agree with President Bush, the SRJC should not host politically biased lecturers who only give one side of the story. By the SRJC opening up the Newman Auditorium for Laufer, it is essentially using tax dollars to promote Laufer's position.

I wholeheartedly support debate. However, no debate occurs when only one side of the argument is presented. The SRJC is obligated to bring in someone from the opposing side. It should invite a lecturer who promotes national sovereignty and secure borders, unlike Laufer.

Better yet, the SRJC shouldn't have invited Laufer at all. His lecture was shallow and rash. His only premise was: The current situation is so unreasonable and beyond remedy, with thousands flocking across the borders every day and night, let's not fight it anymore. Let's just give in and open wide the borders. The current system is not working, I agree, but Laufer draws his idea out of a hat and suggests, how about open borders?

An open border with Mexico would be a freeway for terrorist mobility. This problem is appropriate having just commemorated 9/11. The number of Middle Eastern and Asian illegal border crossers has increased by 42 percent in the past five years. The Washington Times reported in Terrorists said to seek entry to U.S. via Mexico on April 7, 2003 that, Al Qaeda members are working with Mexican organized crime groups in an attempt to enter the United States covertly. Border Patrol officials found a diary written in Arabic on a southern Arizona trail frequently used by illegal aliens.

I asked Mr. Laufer about this problem. He neatly sidestepped this issue and said let us just hope for the best. Well Mr. Laufer, hope won't keep illegal terrorists out of this country. A strong border will.