Media in the Bag

It must be terrific to have Big Media in your hip pocket, especially when you are the President of the United States of America. I don't see how Big Media can sell themselves out any more than they have. Here is the latest evidence, provided by USAToday. Notice the headline, then the actual text...

******

Obama signs new G.I. Bill for 'all who serve'
11:26 AM

President Obama saluted the extension of G.I. Bill education benefits to post-9/11 veterans on Monday, saying they sacrificed abroad while others back home sought to make money or play politics.

...President Bush actually signed the new G.I. Bill last year, but it did not take effect until last Friday. It basically gives college financial assistance to veterans of the war on terrorism, post 9/11, including those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and their families. The bill also covers reservists and National Guard members. (USAToday, 8/3/09)

******

That little tidbit about the former president showed up six paragraphs into the article. I don't know why they bothered to include it at all.

Watchdog media? More like lapdog.

How to Expand the Economy

I firmly believed that the "cash for clunkers" program was a clever way that our beloved government could say that they were taking action without having to take action because I thought that their definition of a "clunker" eliminated about everyone. It turns out, instead, that there are a lot of "clunkers" out there that do qualify and people are cashing in.

Our liberal pols are probably getting a few bruises from all the congratulatory and self-congratulatory pats on the back they have been passing around. Wonderful, successful program they are all saying.

I say, "Great!" Glad they are so successful. So why not expand the basis behind the program to the entire economy and see what happens? "Cash for clunkers," along with the first-time homebuyer credit, is a targeted tax rebate. In effect, it allows people to do what tax cuts do: keep more of their own money and use it as they see fit. If these limited, targeted tax breaks are so great for the automotive and housing sectors of the economy, then why not maintain low tax rates, expand tax cuts where they can be made, and watch the economy really expand? I think that this is a grand idea, so while your liberal Congress-folk are home, why not ask them what they think?

Sadly, the real liberal story is already leaking out...

******
President Obama may have to break his campaign pledge and raise taxes on middle-class Americans to pay for public health care and the growing deficit, an eventuality that administration officials touched lightly on Sunday as they promoted an economy emerging from recession.
With an expected deficit next year of $1.8 trillion, and spending still being planned for a $1 trillion, 10-year health care reform, officials say something will have to be done to prevent further erosion of the economy.
"We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we ... can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on ABC's "This Week."
Asked point blank whether it was right to suggest it is a matter of when, not if, taxes will be raised, Geithner responded, "It is absolutely right." ("Obama Officials Don't Dismiss Possibility of New Taxes," FoxNews, 8/2/09)
******

See Congress? See Congress raise taxes? See the economy tank?

Enemies of the State

From the Rush in a hurry e-mail:

******
Obama said today that the government will bundle payments to doctors based on how well the doctors are doing their job. Who is he to "reward" doctors? They work and they get paid!

"In whose polluted mind are doctors the enemy? They sure appear to be with this man. He wants people to think greedy doctors and super-greedy insurance companies are the problem." -Rush

"The State-Run Media is already on board with the whole notion that the obese are villains who are damaging the rest of us, and have to be dealt with by taxing their food. Here's how the obese will beat the fat tax: the fat guy will find a skinny kid to go in and buy his Big Mac, McNuggets, and fries. In exchange, the fat guy will go to the liquor store and buy the kid's booze." -Rush

"Obama says we have to rush and do health care right now 'cause he's getting letters. Of course, he never got a letter telling him to leave it alone. He only gets demands for government-run health care. My question is when does Obama have time to read all this fan mail?" -Rush
(Rush Limbaugh, 7/28/2009)

******

Liberals Set on Life Reduction Policies

Bryan Alexander over at his "Right Thinking" blog, posted an excellent write up about Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg's recent comment: "“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

"Populations that we don't want to have too many of?" What is that all about? Ah, yes, those huggable, loveable liberals and their life reduction policies. Read it all at "A Look Behind Ginsburg's Words."

Poor Trudeau

Since cartoonist Garry Trudeau refuses to treat the Obama administration like he did the Bush administration, his "Doonesbury" comic strips have been rather dull and boring lately. Poor Garry Trudeau. So sad.

Speaking of Arrested

I don't seem to recall any charges of racism, racial profiling, or any other sort of racial travesty being raised by press or president when this black man was led away in handcuffs.

******

Former Illinois U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes and 21 other protesters were arrested this morning when they refused to leave the Notre Dame campus during a protest of President Obama's upcoming commencement address there, authorities said.Keyes and the others were arrested on trespassing charges when they refused to leave campus, a university spokesman said. All 22 were being held in the St. Joseph County Jail on misdemeanor criminal trespass charges, in lieu of $250 bond each, said St. Joseph County Sheriff's Sgt. Bill Redman.
Keyes was among a group of 26 protesters, some of them pushing baby carriages with dolls covered in fake blood, who entered the campus and were greeted by Notre Dame police, said university spokesman Dennis Brown. (ChicagoBreakingNews, 5/8/09)

******

(Photo: the arrest of Alan Keyes)

Living the Dream

“[President Obama] doesn't know the facts, he wasn't there, he pops off, just exactly as he would back in Chicago in the community organizing days. He goes off about racial profiling, all the rest. Based on what? A limited amount of information about a single incident where he's quick to condemn the cop, the whole police department, and white America. Mr. President, you are not a victim. You are, in fact, the president of the United States. You went to private school. You went to Ivy League schools. You are a millionaire. You have a charmed life. Congratulations. You're living the American dream. Stop pretending otherwise. If anybody behaved stupidly yesterday it was the president, in even taking the question.” -- Rush Limbaugh, 7/23/09

Well, Mr. Obama is living the American dream. I wish that he would stop racing to take away that opportunity from the vast majority of America's citizens.

Racism Charges Bogus

The issue surrounding the arrest of Dr. Louis Gates, Jr., has escalated beyond reason. Big Media get to report the story any way they want, and they want to make sure that virtually everything points to racist profiling by police brutes. Except CNN's report yesterday already disclosed some details about the incident. I notice that tonight's photos are carefully cropped for the television audiences, showing a white police officer arresting a distressed black man. But look at the wider view taken from the CNN account. Sgt. Crowley is far from the only police officer present, and not all of them are white.

******

Gates had just returned from a trip to China when a police officer responded to a call about a potential break-in at his home that was phoned in by a white woman. According to the police report, Gates was in the foyer when the officer arrived.

The officer asked Gates to "step out onto the porch and speak with me," the report says. "[Gates] replied, 'No, I will not.' He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was 'Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police' and that I was 'investigating a report of a break in progress' at the residence.

"While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed, 'Why, because I'm a black man in America?' "

According to the report, Gates initially refused to show the officer his identification, instead asking for the officer's ID. But Gates eventually did show the officer his identification that included his home address.

"The police report says I was engaged in loud and tumultuous behavior. That's a joke," Gates told The Root. "It escalated as follows: I kept saying to him, 'What is your name, and what is your badge number?' and he refused to respond. I asked him three times, and he refused to respond. And then I said, 'You're not responding because I'm a black man, and you're a white officer.'" -- CNN, 7/22/09

******

Big Media makes a big deal out of the typical stuff: Mild-mannered black university professor & family man hounded and handcuffed by big, bad police. What they conveniently leave out are picky things like: Why should Sgt. Crowley know or recognize who Professor Gates is? No police officer knows who is going to pull out a weapon - age and location of the suspicious person does not necessarily have a bearing. Why didn't Professor Gates simply cooperate from the start? After all, the Cambridge Police were there on the basis of thwarting a crime. Is that such a terrible thing? Especially since it was Professor Gates's home they were ultimately protecting?

Maybe folks (no race attachment) who exhibit unwarranted, arrogant, provocative behavior against the police should be put on a do-not-respond list for a couple of months, during which time the local police department get to ignore any calls for assistance to that residence. They don't want to stir a riot, after all.

(Photo: the arrest of Professor L. H. Gates, Jr.)

Yet Another Creepy Lib

Today must just be the day for me to run across all those anti-death-penalty, daisy peddlin,' love everyone, tree huggin' liberals who want to kill off major segments of population. I caught some of this on Peter Heck's show last week (or week before?), but it jumped up at me again in a Fox news headline today.

Turns out our beloved president's science czar (that's creepy right there, don't you think?), John Holdren, was co-author of a 1977 science textbook in which compulsory abortions and other draconian, malthusian measures were recommended (in a science textbook) to shrink the population. That's HUMAN population, folks.

******
But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com. The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.

The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."

As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates. Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.

To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty. -- "Obama's Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions," Fox News, 7/21/2009
******

Holdren is denying that he has supported such ideas and has expressed righteous anger that sources like FrontPage, Fox News, et. al. would dare conjure up such slander based on his contributions to a science textbook published in 1977. (Quick aside: ya' know, it's funny how libs get all upset when no one takes them seriously, but are then so quick to deny everything they have ever said and written when they are taken seriously. It's all so confusing. Do they want me to help them spread their liberal ideas or don't they?)

Folks, it gets clearer and clearer that Americans have allowed the inmates to create and then run the asylum.

I have a unique idea! Why don't all these malthusian wing-nuts get themselves together and drink their own tainted kool-aid (with apologies to a fine brand name)? They would be doing that which they believe everyone else should be doing: dying for population control. It makes wonderful sense to me.

Oh, wait. Whattya mean they've got "elitist" tatooed on their foreheads?

Obama Not Familiar With House Plan

In response to my earlier blog & e-mail, "Liberal Policy-Makers & Healthcare," Raleigh sent an article from The Heritage Foundation. I include the text in its entirety below. Go to the website, if interested, by clicking here: "Obama Not Familiar with House Bill."

While looking for the article Raleigh sent me, I ran across another alarming one: "Should Government Determine the Value of Human Life?" Peter Singer, Princeton bioethics (using the term "ethics" loosely) professor & philosopher, wrote an article for New York Time's Magazine, "Why We Must Ration Health Care." (Singer also advocates infanticide, proposing that abortion be made legal for 28 days after birth, in order to allow parents to decide whether to keep an "imperfect" child.)

When I began sending various e-mails, it was for the tongue-in-cheek purpose of getting the liberal message out since they believe that that is what is holding them back from greater political success. I contend that getting the liberal message out will generate the opposite effect, so I am happy to help them out.

But it is not all fun and games. Combatting the left is not a hobby; it is a fight for life!

Keep the message going!


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: Liberal Policy-Makers & Healthcare

Chuck, What is scary is Obama of his own admission isn't aware of what is in his health bill. Ouch! SEE Below. Raleigh

Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill
With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

This is a truly disturbing admission by the President especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.

We are familiar with the passage IBD sites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence. The House bill does allow private insurance to be sold, but only “Exchange-participating health benefits plans.” In order to qualify as an “Exchange-participating health benefits plan,” all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all send the cost of private individual health insurance skyrocketing. Furthermore, all these new regulations would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage as well. Until, of course, it becomes so expensive that your company makes the perfectly economical decision to dump you into the government plan.

President Obama may not care to study how many people will lose their current health insurance if his plan becomes law, but like most Americans, we do. That is why we partnered with the Lewin Group to study how many Americans would be forced into the government “option” under the House health plan. Here is what we found:

Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and as a consequence about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.

About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with.

President Obama owes it to the Americans people to stop making promises about what his health plan will and will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.

Truly, Ignorance Is Bliss

Ya' know, I am actually jealous of my fellow Americans who have nothing more to be concerned about than how well President Obama tossed the ceremonial first pitch at the All-Star game or how he was attired while doing it.

******

One might have thought that the most cringy part of President Barack Obama's performance on the mound before last week's All Star game was that his delivery of the first pitch had absolutely no mustard on it. At least he didn't bounce it to the plate.
But now the controversy is not about his weak-sauce sinker, but his baseball attire. The fashion community, and by that we mean anyone wearing clothes, says the president was wearing mom jeans — high-waisted, baggy demin favored by, moms? Actually, they didn't seem that bad — no pleats or elastic waist band, anyway. But when the president felt compelled to address the pressing matter Tuesday, he issued no apologies. (Jeff Thomas, "The Star Report," Silicon Valley Mercury News, 7/21/09)

******

With economic upheavals, a government spinning & spending out of control, North Korea & Iran promising to nuke their favorite enemies, all kinds of policy-makers threatening the planet with forced abortion & euthanasia, and every other type of apocolyptic scenario imagineable unfolding, it must be nice to blissfully ignore all that and, instead, express such concern over a ceremonial pitch and clothing.

Alas, I am cursed: I am not ignorant enough.

Liberal Policy-Makers & Healthcare

I have had supporters of government healthcare criticize me and other conservatives for describing the probable negative results: higher taxes, fewer personal choices and freedoms, poorer care, rationed care, and so on. "Fear mongering exaggerations!" the libs like to respond, indicating once again how well-researched their conclusions usually are. So I have an idea: let's skip the conservative "fear mongering tactics" and jump right over to the liberal poicy-makers themselves...

******
Discrimination against the elderly when it comes to healthcare is not discrimination — at least not to a key member of the Barack Obama administration. Ezekiel Emanuel is director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and an architect of Obama's healthcare reform plan. He is also the brother of Rahm Emanuel, Obama's White House chief of staff.
Express Riders, the blog of conservative businessman and philanthropist Foster Friess, reports that Ezekiel Emanuel has written that health services should not be guaranteed to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." He also stated, "An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia," according to Friess' site.
Friess also points to an equally troubling article co-authored by Emanuel, which appeared in the medical journal The Lancet in January. It read in part: "Unlike allocation [of healthcare] by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. Every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
Friess asks: "Are these the values we want undergirding our healthcare system?" ("No Health Services for Dementia Patients?" Newsmax, 7/20/09)
******
Whether we want these values or not, these are the values we will get. The liberal policy-makers are telling us plainly themselves. What is there not to believe? But I'll bet that if President Obama is ever asked about this in a press conference, he would look into the cameras with his straight, "trust me" face and tell every American watching and listening that denying care to anyone will never happen.

So who are you going to believe?

Bumper Sticker Conservatism - Health Care

Source: www.PatriotDepot.com

WWSD?

What would Sotomayor do (WWSD)?

In 1844, the $7 million estate of Stepehn Girard (a French deist) was to be used to establish an orphanage and school in Philadelphia with the stipulation that no religious influence be allowed. The city rejected the proposal. Their lawyers declared, "The plan of education proposed is anti-christian, and therefore repugnant to the law... The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which man derives his faith - the Bible... There is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality."

The case went before the U.S. Supreme Court, Vidal v Girard's Executors, 43 U.S. 126, 132. Unanimous decision: "Christianity... is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public... It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propogation of... Deism, or for any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country... Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? ...It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

Blows you away, doesn't it?

WWSD?

Media Favoritism

What a difference Big Media favoritism can make. It has been a long time since Big Media has offered up such glowing recommendations for a Supreme Court nominee. Perhaps if they had not already crowned Hillary Clinton with the title, Sonia Sotomayor just might be the "smartest woman in the world." Even without this accolade, however, Big Media paints their nominee as brilliant for her responses to this tough confirmation process.

Now this would be just peachyif it were not for Big Media's clear hypocrisy. Sotomayor is just glowingly brilliant for her abilities to not answer specific questions about potential future legal rulings. According to legal experts I have read, and judges I have heard, this is appropriate. How impartial can a judge be if he/she indicates predetermined judgments before hearing a case? So I can understand the nature of Sotomayor's answers and comments. (Although, I also comprehend that judges must rule on established law, so some cases are going to be pretty much predetermined anyway. And certainly Sotomayor could indicate clearly whether she is going to apply constitutional law or not, which is the point of the Supreme Court. Besides, I can probably already guess what her ruling is going to be on certain cases without her premature declarations. I doubt that her ideology is going to shift any moving from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court.)

An Associated Press article from 7/15/09 reads, "The appeals court judge, 55, avoided weighing in on any major issue that could come before her as a justice, instead using legal doctrine, carefully worded deflections and even humor to ward off efforts to pin her down." Brilliant! Remarkable! Applaudable! What a judicial heroine we have on our hands.

Except - and here is where just a wee, tiny bit of hypocrisy creeps in - every Supreme Court justice nominee has necessarily done the same thing! As indicated by those in the system, it is the proper thing to do. Yet, when the most recent nominees have done it, Big Media has gone ballistic. "They're not qualified! They can't render legal decisions! They are incompetent! They won't answer a straight question!" Ad nauseum. But not this time. This time, the nominee is just brilliant as she deflects those specifics that should not be declared without a real case.

Amazing! Simply amazing!

Need to Choose Sides

"America was founded by people who believed that God was their rock of safety. I recognize we must be cautious in claiming that God is on our side, but I think it's all right to keep asking if we're on His side." - Ronald Reagan, Second Inaugural Address, 1/25/1984

National Emergencies

Except for a brief period following September 11, 2001, liberals and Democrats (if there is any real distinction) combined to protest about every action proposed to defend the nation against further attack. Remember how the obvious reality that America faced a national emergency was derided, and reasonable steps taken to safeguard our shores were challenged every step of the way? Not even a national emergency of 9/11 magnitude warranted "threats" to what the liberal-Democrat establishment perceived as constitutional freedom.

That was then, this is now.

National emergencies are now in style and responding to them as such is the current fashion. Government cannot do enough to stare down our national emergencies, and every policy enacted is welcomed with open arms by the left. Case in point... After listing how the BHO administration is standing up to every special interest group - owners, stockholders, bondholders, Wall Street "vultures," car dealers, suppliers, pensioners, environmentalists, and labor - Tom Walsh of the Detroit Free Press applauds the actions that have been taken to save the auto industry. Why? Well, in his own words...

*****
So Obama's auto rescue commandos have proven to be pragmatic, tough, nonideological. God figure. And if at times they seem callous and a bit pushy, think of this as a national emergency, equivalent to a major war. During World War II, U.S. citizens put up with things we'd never tolerate in peacetime. Today, in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, we can tolerate a lot, too - assuming things revert to "normal." (Tom Walsh is an auto columnist for the Detroit Free Press)
*****

And then there is Professor Al Gore comparing the fight to stop the global warming threat to World War II. National emergency.

Economy: national emergency. Global warming: national emergency. Government must do anything and everything, irrespective of Constitutional boundaries, to face these national emergencies head on. Islamic terrorist threats capable of massacring thousands of American citizens in one stroke? Naw, no national emergency there. Not even a war; just a series of legal actions to be handled in some court rooms.

Fascinating.

Health Care Flow Chart

Here it is... the liberal Democrat health care plan explained*. Aren't you glad that our federal government is fixing our ["broken"] health care system? I just cannot wait for its implementation in the USSA.

Click here for a PDF version. At least the graphic will be clearer.

* Flow chart provided by the ranking House Republican, Rep. Kevin Brady.

Corporate Green

This has been - and still is - my suspicion about all the "green" talk coming from most corporations. I certainly do not mind businesses responding to customer wants & needs, nor do I mind businesses that try to be the best stewards possible, but I do hate to see everyone merely steamrolled by the dangerous political nonsense called global warming.

The Logic of Dems

Great observation from my brother, Douglas. So sadly true.


******
Mind boggling. :-)

Here is a quote from the *mayor* of Boston with regards to the *governor* cutting funds for the *Boston* zoo."This is just another bad decision on budget cuts,” Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino told the Globe. “It's a great resource for the community. The zoo is an inexpensive place to spend a day in tough economic times."

So, let me rephrase what he is saying to make it crystal clear how he thinks..."This is just another bad decision on state budget cuts made by the governor of the state," Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino told the Globe. "The Boston zoo is a great resource for the Boston community (and not necessarily for the other residents of our state). The zoo (with state wide funds provided by the other residents of our fine state who never get the chance to enjoy our zoo) is an inexpensive place for Bostonians to spend a day in tough economic times (as long as it is paid for by the rest of the citizens of Mass. in these tough economic times, they don't deserve a break)."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531650,00.html?test=latestnews

******

Mind boggling, indeed. Thanks, Douglas!

Using Public Transportation

I just submitted my latest thoughts on saving the planet to some of my local newspapers. Maybe my readers here can use the idea...

******

Dear Editor,

As a new school year rapidly approaches, I have been thinking of sacrifices we must make in order to save the planet. What better places to begin than in our schools? Advocates of policies that reduce global warming have been calling for mandatory use of public transportation for some time now. We have a lack of this in our smaller towns and communities, except in the area of public school transportation. Therefore, it logically follows that private student vehicles be prohibited on campus and that all students be required to ride the school bus provided, thus eliminating needless carbon emissions. In light of the alarms being raised by Professor Al Gore and others, it is critical that we make such sacrifices.

“Wait a minute!” I can hear readers exclaim. “They can’t tell me what to do!” I beg to differ. If we allow our Senators to pass the cap-and-trade bill that has already made it through the House, we are inviting our federal government to tell us: what cars to drive, where to set our thermostats, when to run our heat and a.c., what energy sources to use, what food to eat and how to cook it, and other areas of our lives I have yet to contemplate or that they have yet to add to this growing bill. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D - Calif.) has let Americans know that “every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory” in order to combat global warming. Based on their promises, I would say that telling us what to do is exactly what our government has in mind.

By the way, area students, I doubt that any of you will be considered elitist enough to be allowed to escape the consequences of cap-and-trade and other global warming legislation. This isn’t Hollywood, you know.
******

Sacrifice is what it's all about!

The American Pied Piper

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.' -- Thomas Jefferson

What Happened to Moral Relativism?

Every informed conservative across America knew what was going to happen as soon as SC Gov. Mark Sanford admitted to an adulterous affair: every liberal across the fruited plains would be pointing out the devastation of his immorality. Well, the governor should suffer devastating consequences. His action was immoral and unconscionable.

However, when conservative-bashing columnists like Leonard Pitts, Jr., go to great pains to express moral outrage, it is little more than laughable hypocrisy. Liberals are the kings & queens of moral relativism. What basis do they have to judge Sanford? He was pursuing, after all, the course of action that seemed right to him. After all, this has been the course pursued by Clinton, Edwards, et. al.

Now, however, a politician engaging in an affair, deception, lies, and whatever other moral impropriety is a problem to liberal journalists, columnists, & bloggers who are now calling for his removal from office. We can only speculate why that would possibly be.

Nevertheless, Sanford still has potential in his political life. He can always move into the Democrat party where, as Limbaugh fondly observes, immorality becomes a resume enhancer.

Remembering Our Foundation

"Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us."

"By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects... It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published."

"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty."

-- Benjamin Rush (1746-1813), physician & political leader, member of the Continental Congress, & signer of the Declaration of Idependence

Glorious Fourth!

Once again we have the joyful privilege to celebrate our nation’s heritage of independence, freedom, and liberty. Every time I study the events surrounding our nation’s founding, I grow more and more amazed at the wisdom and foresight of our Founders. Instead of establishing yet another monarchy or some such form of intrusive government, they handed the power of government to the citizens of this land. They did this with stern warnings that the government they established could be sustained only to the extent that the citizens honored the foundation upon which they built this Constitutional Republic. That foundation is the moral law of the Judeo-Christian faith. The notion of the kind of “separation of church and state” being promoted in our day was completely foreign to our wise Founders. Referring to the day that the Continental Congress approved the wording of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams wrote to his wife: “The second day of July, 1776, will be a memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to Almighty God. It ought to be solemnized with pomp, shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of the continent to the other, from this time forward forever.”

To a person, our Founders predicted what would happen to this grand republic if the foundation upon which it is laid is removed. As it is dismantled bit by bit, we see the accuracy of their predictions taking place in our own day. I do not suggest that my fellow Americans who are atheist or some form of secular humanist are inherently evil people. Most are great folks with extremely decent character. But they have no basis for moral discernment. They do make moral discernments, but when they do, they must necessarily borrow from the same moral law upon which our Founders built this republic. Even then, however, we continue to see their moral relativism side more and more with the immoralists who seek to dismantle the fabric that has kept us together as a nation that prizes the value of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Still, as long as we have a bit of our foundation left, we are able to commemorate the Fourth of July as a glorious day of deliverance. With this, I wish my fellow patriots a most Glorious Fourth!

Ahmadinejad Thanks Obama for Not Interfering

President Obama, the glorious leader of the free world, has been so careful to side step support for those risking their lives in protest against their totalitarian state and to make certain that the world knows that he is not interfering in Iranian affairs and handing Iranian leaders propoganda fodder, that the landslide-winning Iranian president has now come out and expressed his appreciation:

******
"I hope that you (Obama) will stop interfering in Iran's affairs and ask for forgiveness so that the Iranian people know," Ahmadinejad was quoted by the agency as saying, adding: "Mr. Obama made a mistake when he said that...We would like to know why he has fallen into the same trap by saying the same thing [former U.S. president George] Bush said." (The Financial, 6/26/09)
******

Yes, Mr. Obama deserves everyone's appreciation for keeping America safe from undeserved criticism. Saaalute!

Con Games

State Attorney General offices alert their citizens to con games and scams and provide educational material aimed at helping their citizens recognize some warnings that a solicitation might be a scam. Consider some of the red flags:

Con artists pressure potential victims to make a decision right away with no time to think it over. If you hesitate, the opportunity will be lost with no second chance.

Con artists pressure potential victims into paying for the service and/or providing sensitive personal information without providing a written contract.

Con artists deliver high pressure offers that promise high returns for no risk.

As BHO, his administration, and our Democrat Congress pitch their health care, climate change, and economic recovery proposals to the American people, do their techniques have a familiar ring to them?

The Indiana Attorney General site warns, "If you have any doubts, or if the offer made to you seems too good to be true, trust your instincts. Decline the offer and hang up immediately."

How Will You Pay for It?

"How will you pay for it?" This is the question I am going to ask each and every Congress person in my state concerning any proposed nationalized healthcare plan (ie, Obamacare). Before any of my elected representatives agree to any Obamacare plan, I want each and every one of them to explain to me the cost and how it will be paid for. And I want an answer that is clear, concise, and comprehensive. Think that's even remotely possible?

Here's what prompted me to think of this:
Overspending May Block Obamacare

Here is the text of my letter to my Congress-people:

*****

Dear (Senator)/(Representative):

Once again, my government is in a head-over-heels hurry to pass massive, expensive, and liberty limiting legislation and policy without allowing adequate time for vigorous debate. This time, it is health care legislation. I have three simple questions for you concerning health care legislation.

(1) How much will this health care legislation cost?

(2) How do you propose the cost of this health care legislation will be covered?

(3) Are you going to forego your current health care plan and join the one mandated for most Americans by the health care proposals being initiated and pushed by this administration?

Sincerely,

*****

Use it as you see fit.

Let Freedom Ring

Liberal freedom fighters (an obvious oxymoron as we shall see), led by supreme commander Obama, refrain from condemning the Iranian mullah regime and distinguishing good from evil in this clash between totalitarianism and dissent because they are not certain how this "vigorous debate" will all "play out." Here's a clue, folks: The brutalization of the protestors will continue to escalate until the dissent will be bloodily put down. And those brave, daring Iranians who have put their lives on the line will wonder in sad, dispirited amazement how the world's leading free nations abandoned them to the ravages of totalitarianism.

Moral relativists like Stephen Dick cower behind their supreme commander and support his every nuanced move. Writes Mr. Dick, "In the US, President Obama has taken a measured approach. He has questioned the results of the election but not separated the protestors and the mullahs into good and evil... Last week, the Republicans in the House offered up a useless resolution to back the Iranian protestors, but it served as a political thumb in the eye to Obama who wants to open up a dialogue with Tehran." (Kokomo Tribune, 6/25/09, p. A4) Later in his article, Mr. Dick goes on to make the typical liberal rant that this all America's fault anyway because we helped Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ascend to power in 1953 - all for nasty oil, of course. The lack of logic by those like Mr. Dick amazes me: Today's events in Iran are "America's fault," but we dare not intervene because they are Iran's problems, not ours.

This president, along with his adoring minions, is determined to ally himself with brutal totalitarian regimes and turn his back on allies and devoted freedom fighters. In just as confusing, tenuous, threatening times, an oppressed people rose up against their oppressors. The leader of the free world then did not fail them. Polish leader Lech Walesa writes, "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989." (Freedom Eden) He also said, "The Polish people, hungry for justice, preferred 'cowboys' over Communists."

Mr. Obama certainly does not have to worry about being mistaken for a "cowboy" as he stands on the sidelines waiting for it all to "play out."

(BTW, google has some of the lamest images of the Iranian protests imagineable. Amazing.)

Stop the Hate Crimes Bill

I have recently received warnings about the status of S. 909, "The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act." Although the actual bill no longer exists because it could not be passed in its existing form, there is concern that the legislation will be added as an amendment to another necessary bill. (Even though S. 909 does not exist as a formal bill, I will refer to this bill number simply for ease of reference).

There are two very major concerns about S. 909 legislation. First, it includes protection for "sexual orientation" but does not define what that means. For this reason, the bill was dubbed "the pedophile protection act." CitizenLink, a publication of Focus on the Family, notes, "Also concerning is the fact that House Democrats voted down an amendment to their bill that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of 'sexual orientation.'"

Second, the broad, unspecific language of this legislation raises concerns that any speech, especially religious, that criticizes or condemns particular sexual behaviors will become treated as "hate speech." More info on these concerns is available at Operation Save America.

Members of leftist organizations are howling at such accusations and concerns, of course. Child molestation will never be legal and free speech will never be threatened, they tell us. I invite any interested reader to consider the track record of liberal "promises" when it comes to violating established moral and ethical boundaries. What they seek is a start so that they can continue to push their immoral agendas further and further into our lives. For instance, abortion began with emotional pleas about protecting innocent victims from having to bear a child resulting from rape or incest (which will likely become protected through "hate crime" legislation). It began with promises that abortions would be limited to the first trimester. Flash forward to the present: abortion is now demanded as a right for any woman at any time up to and including post-birth (infants born alive following an abortion attempt have been allowed to die through intentional neglect).

The last time I was privileged to host the Peter Heck Radio Talk Show, I raised the issue that the very arguments used to justify the legal standing of homosexual behavior would eventually be used to justify the legal standing of pedophile behavior and any form of adult-child sexual relationship. It does not seem possible to reasonable Americans, but this is exactly the tact being taken by those who are pressing their agenda through a variety of means. I invite you to read the responses of "porlaverdad3" at the MorganWrites blog.

Our Senators need to know that giving legal status to deviant sexual behavior is not acceptable. I urge you to contact your Senators about this. I include my draft of a letter that you can use below. You can find contact information for your Senator at senate.gov. Please take action.

*********

Dear Senator:

I request that you OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER ANY "HATE CRIMES" AMENDMENT, which was until recently labeled S. 909. The original bill was so dangerously crafted that it could not be passed standing alone; instead, indications are that it will become a hidden amendment to another "must-move" bill.

This so-called "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act" must be defeated. This amendment will mirror the House bill passed as H.R. 1913, which makes "sexual orientation," "gender," and "gender identity" federally-protected classes under the law, and thereby codifies protection of up to 547 types of sexually deviant behaviors, including but not limited to:

Incest - sex with one's offspring (a crime, of course)
Necrophilia - sexual relations with a corpse, also a crime
Pedophilia - sex with an underage child, another crime
Zoophilia - bestiality, a crime in numerous states
Voyeurism - a criminal offense in most states
Fronteurism - a man approaching an unknown woman and rubbing against her buttocks
Coprophilia - sexual arousal from feces
Urophilia - sexual arousal from urine

This legislation also begins to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute, and persecute anyone whose religious or secular speech and thought is based upon and reflects the truths found in religious texts or medical, psychiatric, and psychological studies.

S. 909 broadly defines "intimidation," thus a pastor's sermon or a doctor’s recommendation could be considered "hate speech" under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any "sexual orientation." Prosecution could be based upon "conspiracy to commit a hate crime."

If you vote for this bill, you will be responsible for elevating pedophiles and other bizarre sexual orientations to unprecedented and unwise levels of protection. I believe that violence against another person should be prosecuted in accordance with appropriate law, BUT SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIOR SHOULD NOT BE ELEVATED AND PROTECTED BY LAW. Please OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER any amendment similar to S. 909.

Sincerely,

[YOUR NAME]
[ADDRESS]

[CITY], [STATE] [ZIP]

*********

Assimilating Big Media

Government and Big Media are one. How nice that after eight years of adverarial relationship with the White House, Big Media can now cuddle up with an administration. I wonder what kind of floral arrangement they'll bring for the Mrs.?

"ABC turns programming over to Obama"

Culture of Violence 2

Following my post on the "Culture of Violence," which was published as a letter in the Kokomo Tribune, a column by Stephen Dick entitled "Conservative Voices Promote Violence" motivated me to offer a reasoned response because, once again, this perspective and logic fail at every turn.

Mr. Dick blasts conservatives for promoting violence. How do they do that? Well, by telling the truth. Mr. Dick is angry with conservatives because of their audacity to declare that abortion kills human life. Is this not the truth, though? Mr. George Tiller’s daily occupation was to destroy human life just as certainly as his own life was destroyed in an alleged murder. In order to paint conservatives with his broad brush of culpability, Mr. Dick has to set up a completely fabricated foundation upon which to build his fanciful accusations. He does this early in his column: “…but deep down right-wing true believers agree with the violence.” Making such an indictment would lead one to believe that his column would be filled with the empirical evidence to substantiate his audacious claim. He provides none.

Instead, Mr. Dick attempts to equate an incident involving willful armed robbery and subsequent self defense with support for pre-meditated murder and turn that into his basis for declaring that conservatives promote violence. Does that not strike you as one of the most ludicrous arguments you have ever heard? The alleged murder of Mr. Tiller had nothing to do with self defense. No conservative he cites, and no conservative I have read or heard, has come anywhere close to condoning the shooting death of Mr. Tiller. The simple truth is that conservative ideology honors the rule of law. In one of the few statements of pseudo-fact in his column, Mr. Dick writes, “Whatever your point of view, Tiller was operating under protection of the law.” Conservatives recognize this. We also recognize that it is bad law and are motivated to correct it by legitimately petitioning our government as provided in our federal and state constitutions. The truth is that abortion is currently protected by court ruling, not by properly legislated law. Nevertheless, it is currently protected. But even that truth cannot mask the reality that the action protected is one that cruelly and violently tears asunder in the womb a human life in the fetal stage of development. The closer the innocent life is to the time of birth, the more cruel and violent the abortion procedure becomes. Operating under the protection of law though he was, Mr. Tiller specialized in the cruelest of abortion procedures.

Not only did Mr. Dick not see fit to mention the violent cruelty inherent in the act of abortion, he goes so far as to write that “to many women, Tiller had been a savior.” How very interesting that the act of dismembering a human life in the womb should result in sainthood for the perpetrator of such violence. Following this line of logic, then, Mr. Dick should have no problem accepting the coronation of Jerome Ersland as “savior” as well. After all, Mr. Ersland’s action resulted in the protection of an unknown number of innocent victims from the deadly danger of further armed robberies by the criminal he shot in self defense. If the world is so much better off because of the dismembering of an innocent human life in the womb, then how much better off is the world by the eradication of one who willfully and purposefully endangered other’s lives through armed robbery? Simply applying Mr. Dick’s logic leads both liberals and conservatives to only one conclusion.

From start to finish, Mr. Dick sets himself up as judge, jury, and executioner of conservatism. Only through his incredibly flawed indictment of what “true right-wingers” believe can he even begin to tie the actions of a lone gunman to an entire ideology that respects our constitutional rule of law. Only through his flawed indictment can he suggest that shining the light of truth on the vicious actions of a cruel industry is a promotion of violent behavior. If Mr. Dick is so concerned about a rising level of violence in our culture, then perhaps he needs to do what I do: actually address one of its principle sources. Pro-abortion advocates want us to believe that they are concerned about eliminating acts of violence in our culture. This is difficult to accept given that they espouse foundational ideologies and actions that have handed our culture the license to treat other human beings without respect, without compassion, and without justice.

Moral Law

I am rather certain that many jokes are making their way through cyberspace about the nature of David Carradine's death. I haven't actually pursued finding any, so I don't have absolute proof. Still, I would be more surprised if no smart-alek comments exist than if they do.


Mr. Carradine's tragic death highlights a significant truth: those who insist on violating the moral law of God run the risk of very significant consequences. The Associated Press reports, "Pornthip Rojanasunand, director of Thailand's Forensic Science, said Carradine may have died attempting a sex act known as auto-erotic asphyxiation - cutting off oxygen to the brain for sexual arousal. The practice is said to result in a form of giddiness and euphoria - similar to alcohol or drug intoxication - that enhances the sexual experience. 'If you hang yourself by the neck, you don't need so much pressure to kill yourself. Those who get highly sexually aroused tend to forget this fact,' Pornthip said." (Kokomo Tribune, 6/6/2009, p. A6)

"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry." (Colossians 3:5) Perhaps some visitors to my blog would want to deny that Carradine's action fits a literal Biblical concept of "sexual immorality." Fine. Protest if you want, but the result speaks for itself. Mr. Carradine is still dead because he engaged in unnecessarily risky behavior. Had he been pursuing an active relationship with the Living God, he would likely still be alive.

Americans have become fascinated with the concept of moral relativism to the point of wishing away the reality of moral law. Indeed, President Obama "quietly" issued a proclamation that June is now Lesbian, Gay, bisexual, Transgendered (LGBT) pride month. The actions of these so-called "sexual minorities" continue to spread a significant array of deadly diseases - HIV, hepatitis, and other sexually transmitted diseases. These are all diseases that rulers like President Obama say they want to see "stamped out" ("We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States." -- President Obama from the cited proclamation). Well, a great way to reduce the number of HIV infections is to refrain from legitimizing the behavior that provides the environment for its spread.

The truth is that the moral law of God will not disappear just because of policy and legislation. Mr. Carradine's death is tragic, and it should be told how dangerous it is to willfully violate moral law. Just as tragic are all of the continuing suffering and deaths that will result from officially recognizing and legitimizing behavior that spreads terrible disease.

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." (Galatians 6:7)

(photo: David Carradine)

Liberal Jokes: Warning North Korea

If it was not such a sobering situation, I would be rolling on the floor with laughter every time I heard an American administration or U.N. official issue a “stern warning” to North Korea. This administration was propelled to power by organizations that believe that military force is always unnecessary, and the world is quite aware of the value of U.N. resolutions. We can be certain that totalitarians are really worried about these “stern warnings.” Besides, everyone knows that North Korea had nothing to do with 9/11. So what’s the big deal? Maybe the president will send Michael Moore over there so that we can get the real picture.

Culture of Violence

Have some American citizens lost all sense of perspective and logic? With Big Media as willing accomplices, the move is on to use the death of George Tiller as a means to silence pro-life individuals and organizations. The connection being made is that pro-life rhetoric is as responsible as the alleged murderer for Mr. Tiller’s death. Such connections completely fail several tests of logic and common sense. Consider, for example, if Mr. Tiller had been a child molester. Would his death be a reason to call for the silencing of all who continue to oppose child molestation? Proceeding on the basis that readers of this blog are an intelligent group, I will answer for us: of course that would not be a reason for opposition to child molestation to cease. We would continue to seek to defend and protect the most vulnerable among us. In fact, I have heard and read comments from quite a few who espouse various ideologies of the left describe what they would like to see done to convicted child molesters. Trust me, their descriptions of punitive retribution fall well outside the current boundaries of “cruel and unusual punishment” as defined in today’s legal system. Yet there seems to be no concern that such expressions of opinion contribute to a widening culture of violence.

Pro-abortion individuals and organizations concerned with rooting out sources of cultural violence would do well to look in their own mirror. Their whole reason for being is permeated with acts of tremendous violence against the most innocent and vulnerable in our culture. Their violence toward children in every stage of fetal development, including post-birth, is completely reprehensible. For pre-birth abortions, the fetal child is literally ripped apart. For post-birth abortions, the newborn child is left to die from neglect and dehydration. Such actions clearly fall outside the current boundaries of “cruel and unusual punishment” as defined in today’s legal system, but pro-abortionists demand that this violence done to the most innocent and vulnerable in our culture continue unabated as a legal right for the sake of convenience.

Pro-abortionists want us to believe that they are concerned about eliminating acts of violence in our culture. This is difficult to accept given that they espouse foundational ideologies and actions that have handed our culture the license to treat other human beings without respect, without compassion, and without justice.

(Image: Fetal hand grasp photo. For full story, click here.)

Different Than Bush?

Gasoline has hit $2.75 per gallon in my neck of the woods. This brief report tells us that OPEC has no intent of backing down from keeping current production levels relatively low.

******

Wed Jun 03 2009

Morning Perspective

Powered by Minyanville: OPEC Not Budging

OPEC's Secretary General Abdullah al-Badri said yesterday the price of crude oil could spike to $80-90 a barrel by early next year. But even if prices were to reach that level, the cartel won't be expanding production until an over-supply has been absorbed. In a story by Reuters, al-Badri said last week that he expected to see crude around $70-75 a barrel by the end of 2009, and acknowledged that at current prices there is some speculation but nowhere near the levels when the commodity spiked to a record $147 last July. But continued speculation as well as a falling US dollar could help push prices near triple digits by the beginning of 2010, al-Badri said. He also added that until oil inventories in industrialized countries fall from a current 62 days to 52 days worth of future demand, the cartel won't be making any moves.

******

So how does this differ from the administration under former Presidnet Bush? I thought that all those cronies who benefited from high gasoline prices were out of office now. It couldn't be that we have been fed a line, could it?

Memorial Day Greeting

Truthfully, I'm not being original this morning. I was impressed with a little article from Navy News about the upcoming commemoration of the Battle of Midway that captures the essence of Memorial Day and am passing it along.

******
[Retired CAPT John W.] Crawford said that one of his vivid memories is being in a room with the torpedo plane pilots prior to their takeoff and the bravery of those men -- bravery that he only saw in retrospect."I've learned in the years since that they were flying very old and much slower planes than the Japanese," Crawford said. "They must have known their chances of coming back were not very high, yet they were not down about that. Such brave men, doing what they felt they were required to do."According to Crawford, of the three squadrons of torpedo planes, none of the planes in the squadron that embarked from Yorktown in the initial attack on the Japanese fleet returned, and only one Sailor survived. A similar fate also met the torpedo plane squadron from the Hornet. ("Midway Vet Recalls Historic Battle," Navy News, 5/21/09)
******

Thank you to all the veterans and all who have supported them in any way. God bless you on this Memorial Day.

When Liberals Collide - Part Tres

I am seeing more liberal ideologies colliding. It is inevitable. As a result, one question to be raised is what happens when liberal special interests can no longer get along? I admit that it is fun to watch them slap each other silly. But that's just me.

This time, conflict arises between auto union interests and environmentalist interests. The article taken from The Detroit News is by Manny Lopez, auto editor. The issue is that Charles Hurley, nominee to run the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has resigned. Writes Mr. Lopez, "His offense? Hurley in the 1990s sided with automakers over the safety impacts of downsizing vehicles to increase fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, that's tantamount to slapping someone's mother when it comes to being 'green.'" ("NHTSA nominee withdraws: Green politics is to blame," printed in The Kokomo Tribune, 5/15/09, p. A4)

Mr. Lopez goes on to provide evidence of the prudence of Mr. Hurley's stand. But that matters not to "enviroactivists" (Lopez's term). "No matter, activists want everyone to drive microcars. And they'll take out anyone who suggests otherwise. 'The administration now has an opportunity to name someone committed to both the safety and fuel economy programs that they run,' said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign. Translation: Vet all candidates through us before appointing your own people. Silly president." (ibid.)

So the power grabs are in full swing. President Obama has a lot of special interests to pay bakc, and they aren't all playing on the same team. In spite of his stated billing as the "great unifier," he has created some pretty inriguing King Kong vs Godzilla (or Alien vs Predator, for the younger mindsets) scenarios out there.

"But it sounds like [Hurley] was thrown under the bus by activists who want to run the auto industry and that doesn't bode well for the president's alleged interests in helping Detroit's car companies survive." (ibid.) Well, Mr. Lopez, I hope that you have received this news flash: "Obama plans to announce on Tuesday that he will couple pollution reduction from vehicle tailpipes with increased efficiency on the road. It would be the first time that limits on greenhouse gases were linked with federal standards for passenger cars and light trucks." (Assoc. Press, "Obama set to link m.p.g., emission standards," The Kokomo Tribune, 5/19/09, p. A1) Sounds like there will be even more qualified nominees thrown under the bus.

Wait'll you see where the liberal collision is next time!

Let the games begin!

Morality is Immoral

From el Rushbo...

"The message that President Obama delivered in his speech at Notre Dame was: morality is immoral. Pro-life is the extremist position, not a moral position. Yet we should compromise and work to reduce abortions. Where's the compromise between life and death -- and why work to reduce the number of them occurring if there's nothing wrong with them?" -Rush Limbaugh, 5/18/2009

In his commencement address, President Obama declared, "I found myself drawn not just to the work with the church; I was drawn to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ. And at the time Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him or known of him, he was a kind and good and wise man."

Obama was "drawn to Christ," but believes it to be perfectly OK to not merely kill human beings in the embryonic stage of life, but to mandate that they die through neglect if they are born alive following an abortion attempt. Obama as an Illinois state senator in April 2002 stating his opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act: "And that essentially adding an additional doctor, who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion." On August 16, 2008, after the forum at the Saddleback Church, Obama responded to Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody, "I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely and fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported, which was to say that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born, even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill -- a law already in place in Illinois that ensured lifesaving treatment was given to infants. So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois Medical Society, so Illinois' doctors, were somehow in favor of withholding lifesaving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous."

Hmmm... Requiring an additional doctor to be called in an emergency situation is a burden on the woman and the physician who originally decided to induce labor and perform an abortion. Supporting the state bill would undermine Roe v Wade.

Yep, murdering infants in and out of the womb... Sounds like Obama was really brought to Christ alright.

I can think of only one thing sadder than the statements this man makes; there are actually people who believe him.

Taking One for the Boss

I post this not to try to prove that President Obama is different than former presidents, but to demonstrate how much he is like them, no matter how much he has promised change. Without a doubt, members of former administrations have had to take one for the boss. It is no different in the Obama administration. When the heat got turned up and someone had to take the fall, it was not going to be the president.

For all his talk about change, what has changed?

******

WHITE HOUSE MILITARY OFFICE CHIEF RESIGNS OVER NYC FLYOVER CONTROVERSY - FOX News Alert, 5/8/09
******