Bad Decisions from the UN...Again

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Read More

Parental Notification Laws Decrease Abortion.

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 associated with a decline in abortion rates among minors from 15 to 17 years 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 a law that requires physicians to notify a parent of a minor child seeking an abortion at least 48 hours before the procedure.

Methods We assessed changes in the rates in Texas of abortions and births (events per 1000 age-specific population) before enforcement of the parental notification law (1998 to 1999) and after enforcement (2000 to 2002). We did this by comparing the rate changes among minors 15 to 17 years of age at the time of conception (i.e., those who were subject to the law) with those 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 by 11 percent among 15-year-olds (rate ratio, 0.89; 95 percent confidence 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 percent confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.87), relative to the rates among 18-year-olds. Among the subgroup of minors 17.50 to 17.74 years of age at the time of conception (who would have been subject to the parental notification law in early pregnancy), birth rates rose by 4 percent relative to those of teens 18.00 to 18.24 years of age (rate ratio, 1.04; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.08). The adjusted odds ratio for having an abortion after 12 weeks' gestation among minors 17.50 to 17.74 years of age as compared with 18-year-olds was 1.34 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.62).

Conclusions The Texas parental notification law was associated with a decline in abortion rates among minors from 15 to 17 years of age. It was also associated with increased birth rates and rates of abortion during the second trimester among a subgroup of minors who were 17.50 to 17.74 years of age at the time of conception.