Another Blind Side: How Compassion Sets The Pro-Life Movement Apart

07/03/2010 -

Not long ago, a Hollywood film, “The Blind Side,” left viewers across America marveling at one family’s compassion in adopting a troubled young teen. This week another such story emerged in the folds of a Minnesota newspaper.

It centers on a pregnant eleventh-grader, who, despite pressure from her boyfriend and mother to have an abortion, decided to protect her baby’s life. But four months into the pregnancy, La’Shay Ester found herself estranged from an already broken family, struggling to juggle school and a full-time job, and in need of some serious help.

That’s when the school nurse, Kathleen Hook, stepped in. It started with small gestures—a hug, some crackers and juice, a place to rest in between classes—but quickly grew into an extraordinary relationship. While others in the school raised disapproving eyebrows, the Hook family offered La’Shay a place to live. They eventually became her legal guardians. And that’s made all the difference in the world for La’Shay.

With the family’s support, the teen is pressing on. She graduated from high school months early, just in time for the birth of her son, Santana. By working at a retail supercenter, she saved enough money to purchase a car so she can commute between her job and the daycare. And this fall, she plans to attend a private four-year university—one that Kathleen helped her apply for—and move in to her own apartment.

The thriving young mother says she owes it all to Kathleen. “I couldn't have made it without her,” she told the newspaper. It felt like “someone loves me, someone cares.”

This kind of compassion is exactly what the pro-life community should—and I believe does—represent. When young mothers are hurting, they don't need another person telling them they can't succeed, that their only option is death for their child and pain for themselves. They need practical help, someone to point them in the right direction. Most of all, they need encouragement to pursue the dreams they have for themselves and their babies. Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Doomsday for Congress' 'old bulls'

06/07/2010 -

Editor's note: Ed Rollins, a senior political contributor for CNN, is senior presidential fellow at the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency at Hofstra University. He was White House political director for President Ronald Reagan and chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

New York (CNN) -- There is a term used widely on Capitol Hill, and it needs no explanation to the tens of thousands who work there serving the House and Senate. The term is "old bulls," and it is used to describe the most senior members of Congress.

Unlike in the farm pasture, where younger and stronger bulls sometimes push the old guys off to the sidelines, the old bulls in Congress usually get stronger and seldom get challenged either for re-election or their chairmanships or ranking positions on committees.

All that is changing. The pending election of 2010 may be a doomsday election that already is causing a giant reshuffling of the old guard. In the last few days, one longtime respected senator, Robert Bennett, was denied renomination by Republican convention delegates in Utah. Yesterday in West Virginia, after 14 terms, Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan was crushed by Democratic voters in his bid for renomination.

You add that to the 37 House members who are retiring or running for other office, and now 10 Senate seats where the incumbent is not running again, and there will be a lot of new faces roaming the Capitol after November.

And add to that the probable defeat of a 30-year veteran senator -- Republican turncoat and now Democrat Arlen Specter -- in the Democratic primary next Tuesday, and you can see that seniority means little to voters. Many formerly safe incumbents will be running for their lives.

The idea that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, now running behind three potential Republican opponents in Nevada (primary June 8) could be the second majority leader defeated in the last six years (the first was Tom Daschle) is unsettling to say the least.

Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

On Presidential Rhetoric

05/13/2010 -

On Presidential Rhetoric

Obama's ad hominem method and the politics of polarization.

President Obama came to office promising an era of political comity, but even he has had to concede that his first 15 months in office haven't lived up to his campaign hope of transcending partisan divisions. While it takes two to tangle, we think the hyper-polarization owes more than a little to Mr. Obama's own rhetorical habits. More than any President in memory, Mr. Obama has a tendency to vilify his opponents in personal terms and assail their arguments as dishonest, illegitimate or motivated by bad faith.

A notable instance is Mr. Obama's ad hominem attack on Mitch McConnell at a California fundraiser for Barbara Boxer on Monday. The Senate Minority Leader "paid a visit to Wall Street a week or two ago," Mr. Obama said, and "met with some of the movers and shakers up there. I don't know exactly what was discussed. All I can tell you is when he came back, he promptly announced he would oppose the financial regulatory reform."

In other words, the Kentucky Republican is merely a mouthpiece for the bankers. Mr. Obama added that Mr. McConnell's objections to the bill were not merely "just plain false" but also "cynical"—and then he repeated the attack on motives at another event the following evening.

We can't recall anything close to this kind of language from, say, Ronald Reagan toward House Speaker Tip O'Neill, or even George W. Bush after Harry Reid called him a "liar." But it is an Obama staple.

A few hours after the Supreme Court's vindication of political speech last year in Citizens United, Mr. Obama called the decision "a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

He later personalized his criticism by rebuking the Justices as they sat in front of him during the January State of the Union, accusing them of reversing "a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections." So the Justices, too, are mere tools of corporate interests. Don't expect many of them at next year's SOTU.

The President is especially fond of employing this blunt rhetorical force against business. In a December interview, Mr. Obama said he "did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street. . . . They're still puzzled why it is that people are mad at banks. Well, let's see," he continued. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in—in decades, and you guys caused the problem." 

Amid the Beltway panic during the AIG bonus bonfire in March 2009, Mr. Obama played directly to the public anger. "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," said the President, and asked, "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping this company afloat?"

He did the same with the Chrysler bondholders who had initially resisted the White House's bankruptcy terms that squeezed them in favor of the United Auto Workers. Mr. Obama characterized these investors in April 2009 as "a small group of speculators" who "were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none." They quickly caved. Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Poll: 4 out of 5 Americans don't trust Washington

04/20/2010 -

WASHINGTON — America's "Great Compromiser" Henry Clay called government "the great trust," but most Americans today have little faith in Washington's ability to deal with the nation's problems.

Public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in a half century, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they don't trust the federal government and have little faith it can solve America's ills, the survey found.

The findings illustrate the ominous situation President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party face as they struggle to maintain their comfortable congressional majorities in this fall's elections. Midterm prospects are typically tough for the party in power. Add a toxic environment like this and lots of incumbent Democrats could be out of work.

Released Sunday, the survey found that just 22 percent of those questioned say they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time and just 19 percent say they are basically content with it. Nearly half say the government negatively affects their daily lives, a sentiment that's grown over the past dozen years.

This anti-government feeling has driven the tea party movement, reflected in fierce protests this past week.

"The government's been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don't follow through," says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Nemacolin, Pa., who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 — the tax filing deadline. "There's too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he's certainly not helping fix it."

Majorities in the survey call Washington too big and too powerful, and say it's interfering too much in state and local matters. The public is split over whether the government should be responsible for dealing with critical problems or scaled back to reduce its power, presumably in favor of personal responsibility.

About half say they want a smaller government with fewer services, compared with roughly 40 percent who want a bigger government providing more. The public was evenly divided on those questions long before Obama was elected. Still, a majority supported the Obama administration exerting greater control over the economy during the recession.

Only twice since the 1950s has public skepticism dipped this deeply — from 1992 to 1995 during which time it hit 17 percent, and 1978 to 1980, bottoming out at 25 percent. The nation was going through economic struggles during both of those periods.

"Trust in government rarely gets this low," said Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan center that conducted the survey. "Some of it's backlash against Obama. But there are a lot of other things going on." Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Lower and Simplify Taxes!

04/17/2010 -

John Stossel
Wednesday, April 14, 2010

It's that joyous time of year: income tax time. So I spend time with my accountant. I don't want to see him, but I must. I could not do what he's doing. The tax code has grown so complex that today most Americans hire someone to do their taxes.

For the money I pay my accountant, I could get a hundred massages. I could buy a fancy motorcycle. I could take a cruise ship to Venice and back.

Better yet, I could do some good in the world. I could pay for two Habitat for Humanity homes or help three kids escape government schools by paying their tuition at a good Catholic school.

What a shame that I pay my accountant instead.

How'd we get to this point? U.S taxes were once simple! The government funded itself on tariffs and excise taxes. It didn't violate our privacy by asking us how much we made or how many dependents we have.

But in 1913, the politicians decided they needed an income tax.

At first, they took little money: just 1 percent on incomes between $20,000 and $50,000. Those were big incomes -- adjusted for inflation, $50,000 is $1.1 million today. The top bracket paid 6 percent, but that only applied to people who earned at least $11 million in today's dollars. Anyone who made less than $400,000 paid no income tax. Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Who is rewriting history?

04/05/2010 -

As both a history teacher and a conservative, I have to admit to being quite amused by the foaming-at-the-mouth reaction liberals have had recently to the Texas Board of Education.  It seems that the board has approved changes to the history curriculum adopted for use in the Texas public school system.
 
The New York Times, ever the beacon of objectivity and fairness, described the changes as, "put[ting] a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks."

The reason I find this situation amusing is because when you look at the actual changes approved for the curriculum, they demonstrate an effort to undo the revisionist, multicultural, politically correct garbage that has overrun American and world history texts for a generation.  In other words, the left isn't worried about history being rewritten; they're worried about seeing the history they've already rewritten being restored.
 
Take, for example, the curriculum surrounding World War II.  In history texts today, the liberal narrative is dominant: that the United States interned Japanese citizens because of fear, prejudice and inherent discrimination against a foreign race.  The Texas Board of Education has now required that narrative to include the reality that in addition to Japanese, both Germans and Italians living in the United States during World War II were also interned.
 
Or consider the treatment of "McCarthyism."  Liberal academics have long used high school and college history texts to portray this era as the lowest example of anti-communist paranoia run amuck.  But the Texas Board has now passed an amendment requiring that any retelling of McCarthyism include "how the later release of 

 [PDF] confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government."
 
Are these examples of "putting a conservative stamp on history?"  No.  They're simply telling the truth.
 
Though it may be inconvenient for the left in trying to carry forth their self-loathing, Americans-as-imperial-racists agenda, we did intern Germans and Italians (the same race) as well as Japanese.
 
And though it may be inconvenient for the left in trying to portray all conservatives as paranoid freaks who see communists under their beds, the Venona documents of declassified information did reveal that there were indeed multiple examples of Soviet operatives in high-ranking positions of American government.
 
Other examples abound.  The left may prefer that free-market giants Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek be excluded from school curriculum in deference to John Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx, but the reality is that the Texas Board is right to include them in American economics courses.
 
The left may find that teaching the violence inherent in the Black Panther movement hampers their lopsided retelling of the Civil Rights era, but the reality is that the Texas Board is right to tell students the full story.
 
And not just the full story, but the true story.  In what I think was the most illuminating example of what's happening in textbooks today, Mavis B. Knight, a liberal Democrat from Dallas, proposed that the Texas curriculum require students to study why "the founding fathers...barred the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others."

.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Pupils aged five on hate register: Teachers must log playground taunts for Government database

03/10/2010 -

By Ryan Kisiel and Steve Doughty
Last updated at 9:21 AM on 04th March 2010

Heads will be forced to list children as young as five on school 'hate registers' over everyday playground insults.

Even minor incidents must be recorded as examples of serious bullying and details kept on a database until the pupil leaves secondary school.

Teachers are to be told that even if a primary school child uses homophobic or racist words without knowing their meaning, simply teaching them such words are hurtful and inappropriate is not enough.

Instead the incident has to be recorded and his or her behaviour monitored for future signs of 'hate' bullying.

The accusations will also be recorded in databases held by councils and made available to Whitehall and ministers to help them devise future anti-bullying campaigns.

The scale of the effort to stop children using homophobic or racist language was revealed after the parents of a ten-year-old primary school pupil in Somerset, Peter Drury, were told that his name would be put on a register and his behaviour monitored while he remained at school.

The boy was reported after he called a friend 'gay boy'. His parents fear the record of homophobic bullying will count against him throughout his school career and even into adulthood.

In another incident last year a six-year-old girl, Sharona Gower, was reported for 'racist bullying' at her school near Tunbridge Wells in Kent. Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Children 'over-exposed to sexual imagery'

02/28/2010 -

Children are being increasingly exposed to sexual imagery and their parents have limited opportunities to stop it, a report for the Home Office warns.

The report calls for tougher regulation of sexual imagery in adverts and a ban on selling "lads' mags" to under-16s.

It also recommends selling mobile phones and games consoles with parental controls automatically switched on.

Author Dr Linda Papadopoulos said there was a clear link between sexualised imagery and violence towards females.

Her report said the material children were being exposed to included the growth of lads' mags and pornography on mobile phones, through to big-name fashion brands using sexual imagery to advertise clothes targeted at young teenagers.

'Distorting perceptions'

Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Underreported Stories of 2009

01/02/2010 -

Michelle Malkin
Friday, January 01, 2010

Most news outlets end the year with extensive reviews of their top headlines and scoops. But the stories they didn't cover deserve much greater attention. Journalistic sins of omission are often far more damning and more telling than sins of commission.

Let's start with President Obama's ongoing radical czar problem. Until Bay Area Marxist agitator-turned-green-jobs-czar Van Jones resigned in September, most Americans hadn't heard of him. Mainstream newspaper readers and network news viewers were left in the dark about his cop-killer-supporting activism, his endorsement of nutball Sept. 11 conspiracies and his advocacy of using capitalism-sabotaging environmental policies as "the engine for transforming the whole society."

Fox News, talk radio and conservative blogs pounded Jones' embarrassing public record for months until the White House and its press corps enablers were forced to acknowledge the firestorm. Only after Obama threw Jones under the bus did New York Times editor Jill Abramson confess that the Fishwrap of Record suffered from "insufficient in-tuned-ness." She promised better coverage of Obama scandals.

So, what's she waiting for, pray tell?

Obama has appointed unaccountable czars by the mile whose statements and policies have yet to hit national media front pages. The "safe schools czar," Kevin Jennings, is a far-left activist whose organization, GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) is infamous among parents' groups for promoting explicit, outrageously age-inappropriate sexual lessons in the classroom. GLSEN's recommended reading for teens includes pamphlets promoting leather bars and public sex in parks and lurid books describing incest, rape, adult-child fantasies and essay collections in which one author recounted playing "sex therapist" at the age of 6 with a 5-year-old friend, and exploring "our sexuality to its fullest."

GLSEN's corporate sponsors include Eastman Kodak, Ernst & Young, PepsiCo and Time Warner. Eastman Kodak defended its sponsorship as an expression of its commitment to "diversity." Secretary of Education Arne Duncan also said he stood by Jennings earlier this year, before this material was exposed in-depth on Fox News, talk radio and conservative blogs. Where are the vaunted watchdogs of the Fourth Estate to follow up now?

Liberal journalists were also AWOL on the Obama White House's U.S. attorney nomination debacle in Denver. What, you hadn't heard of it? You're not alone. Nominee Stephanie Villafuerte withdrew earlier this month after Colorado Republicans, immigration enforcement activists, Denver Post investigative reporter Karen Crummy and Denver talk show host Peter Boyles raised bright red flags about the culture of corruption in her office. Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

As the Nation’s Pulse Races, Obama Can’t Seem to Find His

12/30/2009 -

WASHINGTON

I was walking through a deserted downtown on Christmas Eve with a friend, past the lonely, gray Treasury Building, past the snowy White House with no president inside.

“I hope the terrorists don’t think this is a good time to attack,” I said, looking protectively at the White House, which always looks smaller and more vulnerable and beautiful than you expect, no matter how often you see it up close.

I thought our guard might be down because of the holiday; now I realize our guard is down every day.

One thrilling thing about moving from W. to Barack Obama was that Obama seemed like an avatar of modernity.

W., Dick Cheney and Rummy kept ceaselessly dragging us back into the past. America seemed to have lost her ingenuity, her quickness, her man-on-the-moon bravura, her Bugs Bunny panache.

Were we clever and inventive enough to protect ourselves from the new breed of Flintstones-hardy yet Facebook-savvy terrorists?

W.’s favorite word was “resolute,” but despite gazillions spent and Cheney’s bluster, our efforts to shield ourselves seemed flaccid.

President Obama’s favorite word is “unprecedented,” as Carol Lee of Politico pointed out. Yet he often seems mired in the past as well, letting his hallmark legislation get loaded up with old-school bribes and pork; surrounding himself with Clintonites; continuing the Bushies’ penchant for secrecy and expansive executive privilege; doubling down in Afghanistan while acting as though he’s getting out; and failing to capitalize on snazzy new technology while agencies thumb through printouts and continue their old turf battles.

Even before a Nigerian with Al Qaeda links tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet headed to Detroit, travelers could see we had made no progress toward a technologically wondrous Philip K. Dick universe.

We seemed to still be behind the curve and reactive, patting down grannies and 5-year-olds, confiscating snow globes and lip glosses.

Instead of modernity, we have airports where security is so retro that taking away pillows and blankies and bathroom breaks counts as a great leap forward.

If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?

We are headed toward the moment when screeners will watch watch-listers sashay through while we have to come to the airport in hospital gowns, flapping open in the back.

In a rare bipartisan success, House members tried to prevent the Transportation Security Administration from implementing full-body imaging as a screening tool at airports.

Just because Republicans helped lead the ban on better technology and opposed airport security spending doesn’t mean they’ll stop Cheneying the Democrats for subverting national security.

Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan was weaselly enough to whack the president and “weak-kneed liberals” in his gubernatorial fund-raising letter.

Before he left for vacation, Obama tried to shed his Spock mien and juice up the empathy quotient on jobs. But in his usual inspiring/listless cycle, he once more appeared chilly in his response to the chilling episode on Flight 253, issuing bulletins through his press secretary and hitting the links. At least you have to seem concerned.

On Tuesday, Obama stepped up to the microphone to admit what Janet Napolitano (who learned nothing from an earlier Janet named Reno) had first tried to deny: that there had been “a systemic failure” and a “catastrophic breach of security.” 

.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal

12/02/2009 -

Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as   “Climategate”.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal.  In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball.  “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature.  It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge.  Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels to keep the scandal under the rug, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.

A throwback to the intro of the television series Dragnet, “Ladies and Gentlemen:  “The story you are about to hear is true, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent”, the innocent in Climategate have already been thrown to the ravening wolves. Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Owens Breaks 4 Campaign Promises in first hour in Congress

11/09/2009 -

GOUVERNEUR, NY - Congressman-elect Bill Owens was sworn in at noon today.

Owens indicated in a press release released shortly afterwards that he was now in favor of the the "Affordable Healthcare for America Act" bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during the election campaign.

According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill.  Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.

UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a 'litmus test' for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)

Mr. Owens also indicated during his campaign that he was firmly opposed to cutting Medicare benefits, taxing health care benefits, and increased taxes on the middle class in any way as you can see clearly in the screenshot below, taken directly from Mr. Owens' campaign website. Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

More than 3 Million Registered Voters are Dead, 12 Million More Ineligible, Analysis Finds

11/04/2009 -

Regardless of how lively an election season might be, a new study shows that more 3.3 million voters on current registration rolls across the country are dead.
 
Another 12.9 million remain on voter registration lists in an area where they no longer live.
 
The analysis was conducted by the Aristotle International Inc., a technology company
specializing in political campaigns, developing software and databases for politicians.
 
In total that means about 8.9 percent of all registered voters fall under the category of “deadwood” voters on the rolls, the term for voters who should no longer be eligible to vote in a precinct.

Not only does this raise concerns about potential voter fraud, but from the interest of campaign consultants, ineligible or expired voters could lead to a waste of resources, said John Aristotle Phillips, CEO of Aristotle.
 
“Some states have bigger problems than others,” Phillips said. “With deadwood exceeding one in seven votes in some counties, candidates might as well spend a day a week campaigning in the cemetery.” Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Harrycare Buckles to Government Option

10/28/2009 -

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced yesterday that his “Harrycare” bill will include a government option.  Looking a great deal like a man who can see the end of his political career looming over the horizon, Reid buckled to the far left ideologues in the White House and his caucus to go over the political cliff.

“We intend to include it [a government option] in the bill that will be submitted to the Senate,” Reid said at the presser.  “We’ve spent countless hours over the past few days in consultation with Senators who’ve shown and share a desire to reform the health care system, and I believe there is a strong consensus to move forward in this direction.”

Oops, thought this was about reforming “insurance” not the “health care system,” Sen. Reid.  Must be a misspeak after all those long hours.

Reid also said his bill will include an “opt out” at the state level which is a façade. Can individuals “opt out” of the penalties and the mandatory coverage?  Can individuals “opt out” of paying for government-run health care for everyone else in the country in the form of higher premiums, higher taxes, and Medicare cuts?  Can small business owners “opt out” of the higher payroll taxes?

Who decides what a state does?  The legislature?  The governor?  A state referendum?  It’s not clear.  Also unclear is what exactly happens in Reid’s “opt out” scenario between passage and the drop dead of 2014 for the state “opt out” date, if you’ll pardon the unfortunate juxtaposition.

Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Are church leaders affirming Allah?

08/29/2009 -

Has anyone noticed how hundreds of professing Christian leaders are compromising their faith by uniting with Muslims? Could it be that we are witnessing the formation of the prophesied one-world religion under the Antichrist? (Revelation 13:1-18)

For example, Brian McLaren, a prominent Emerging Church leader, announced plans to celebrate the Islamic holiday Ramadan, commemorating Muhammad's reception of the Quran. On the Fourth of July, when most Americans were celebrating the birth of our nation, Rick Warren, "America's Pastor," addressed the Islamic Society of North America, which, the Department of Justice categorized two years ago as a co-conspirator in financing a foreign terrorist group!

Another Emerging Church leader, Tony Campolo, a proponent of the so-called "evangelical left" claimed that "even if" Muslims "don't convert, they are God's people." Campolo further declared, "A theology of mysticism provides some hope for common ground between Christianity and Islam." ("Speaking My Mind," page 149). Campolo, like McLaren and Warren, has a habit of compromising biblical truth to forge unholy alliances with sworn enemies of the Gospel. Campolo admitted, "Consequently, anyone who accuses me of violating the biblical message is correct!" ("A Reasonable Faith," page 190)

Even more chilling is the fact that over 300 prominent Christian leaders signed a letter issued by the Yale Center for Faith and Culture claiming that world peace is dependent on Muslims and Christians recognizing "Allah" and "Yahweh" as the same God. This letter, titled "Loving God and Neighbor Together," was written in response to a signed document by 138 Muslim leaders titled "A Common Word Between Us and You." McLaren, Warren, Robert Schuller and Bill Hybels were just several of the signatories to this outright betrayal of Christ!

Furthermore, both of these documents affirmed Muhammed as a "Prophet" of God and declared that world peace was dependant on mutual affirmation of the "unity" of God. Dr. William Lane Craig, a leading Christian apologist and

philosopher, correctly stated that by signing this document, Rick Warren and others were, in effect, signing up to become Muslims! This is because an affirmation of Allah as God is a denial of the Triune God revealed in Holy Scripture. Moreover, the Quran denies that Jesus is the Son of God no less than nine times

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Doctors Wage War Against Obama's Health Care Overhall

07/23/2009 -

As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.

As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would create a public health insurance alternative and require coverage for most Americans and from most employers.

The American Medical Association -- the nation's largest physician organization with nearly 250,000 members -- initially opposed the president's plan, but backed the House Democrats' version of the bill last week. That has led to an internal dispute that has resulted in some physicians leaving the nation's largest doctors' association.

Some doctors charge the bill will lead to inferior patient care as physician offices around the country triple their patient lists and become forced to ration care.

"This is war," Dr. George Watson, a Kansas physician and president-elect of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, told FOXNews.com Thursday. "This is a bureaucratic boondoggle to grab control of health care.

Everything that has been proposed in the 1,018 page bill will contribute to the ruination of medicine." Read more here

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct ‘Interventions’ in Private Homes

07/16/2009 -

There is a knock at the front door. Peeking through the window, a mother sees a man and a woman, both in uniform. They are agents of health-care reform.
 
“Excuse me, ma’am,” says the man. “Our records show that your eleven-year-old daughter has not been immunized for genital warts.”
 
“And your four-year-old still needs the chicken-pox vaccine,” says the woman.
 
“He will not be allowed to start kindergarten unless he gets that shot, you know,” says the man—smiling from ear to ear.
 
“So, can we please come in?” asks the woman. “We have the vaccines right here,” she says, lifting up a black medical bag. “We can give your kids the shots right now.”
 
“We are from the government,” says the man, “and we’re here to help.” Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Billions in aid go to areas that backed Obama in '08

07/09/2009 -

That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.

"There's no politics at work when it comes to spending for the recovery," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says.

Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.

The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.

Read more here.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

1st quarter wiped out $1.3 trillion for Americans

06/14/2009 -

By JEANNINE AVERSA – 3 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The brute force of the recession earlier this year turned back the clock on Americans' personal wealth to 2004 and wiped out a staggering $1.3 trillion as home values shrank and investments withered.

Net worth, or the value of assets such as homes, checking accounts and investments minus debts like mortgages and credit cards, declined 2.6 percent in the first three months of the year, the Federal Reserve said Thursday.

Those months were some of the worst of the recession so far for job losses, and the stock market sank to its lowest point of the year in March. Since then, some signs suggest the economy is stabilizing.

Still, partly because of the carnage earlier in the recession, Americans are putting plans on hold until the economy improves.

B. Smith, a conductor for a Chicago commuter rail line, is waiting to buy cars for two of his children. He spent $260,000 to build his suburban Chicago home about 10 years ago and watched its value spike to $380,000 in January 2008. Today, it stands at about $310,000. "I'm still ahead, but I'm not as ahead as I was before," he said.

Even if things improve, such a dramatic evaporation of wealth will probably make Americans more thrifty down the road, said Scott Hoyt, senior director of consumer economics at Moody's Economy.com.

Read more HERE.

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Same-Sex Marriage Bill Signed into Law in New Hampshire

06/04/2009 -

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Concord, N.H. (AP) - New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage after the Senate and House passed key language on religious rights and Gov. John Lynch - who personally opposes gay marriage - signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon.
 
After rallies outside the Statehouse by both sides in the morning, the last of three bills in the package went to the Senate, which approved it 14-10 Wednesday afternoon.
 
Cheers from the gallery greeted the key vote in the House, which passed it 198-176. Surrounded by gay marriage supporters, Lynch signed the bill about an hour later.
 
"Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities - and respect - under New Hampshire law," Lynch said.
 
Lynch, a Democrat, had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes.
 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

Read more here

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Baptist Pastor Assaulted After Refusing Police Search

05/02/2009 -

See disturbing video HERE.

This story has been circulating around the web and is generating some media attention as well.

Obviously, this is a deeply troubling example of a worst-case outcome for a citizen who asserted constitutional rights during a police encounter. Given that our mission is to help people understand and assert these rights, we regret that events like this happen as often as they do.

Fortunately, the internet itself has become a useful tool not only for educating the public about their rights, but also for exposing police who violate the constitutional rights of the people they're supposed to protect. Some might say Steven Anderson's experience is an example of how police just do whatever they want. Yet Steven Anderson is exactly the type of brave citizen whose decision to assert his rights could ultimately have a meaningful impact.

It is precisely because too many police officers continue to recklessly disregard the basic rights of innocent people that we must make sure all citizens have the tools to confidently assert their rights if and when they feel compelled to do so. This incident will likely culminate in a high-profile lawsuit that could change the way similar situations are handled in the future. If it weren't for Anderson's decision to flex his rights, there's no question that the officers he encountered would be out there right now abusing other people, instead of being investigated for civil rights violations.

Protecting Yourself at Police Checkpoints

Read more here

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Steele urged to label Obama a socialist

04/24/2009 -

State RNC leaders raise dissent

By Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact) | Thursday, April 23, 2009

Republican state party leaders are rebelling against new Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele for failing to dub President Obama and the Democrats as "socialists." And the rebels insist that the label matters.

Even though Mr. Steele has called his Democratic adversaries "collectivists," at least 16 state leaders say the term lacks the pejorative punch needed to sway public opinion and want all 168 members of the Republican National Committee to debate and vote on it.

It is the first time in memory that a sitting national leader of the Republican Party has faced a public challenge over his ideological leadership by conservative members of his own national committee.

Critics say it is also a sign of Mr. Steele's rocky start as RNC chairman and his continuing struggle to assert control of the party's message since his election in January.

Read more here

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Sebelius lowballed donations from abortion doctor

04/15/2009 -

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's Health secretary nominee got nearly three times as much political money from a controversial abortion doctor as she told senators. 

The Health and Human Services Department said Monday that the omission was an oversight that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius would correct. 

In a response to questions from the Senate Finance Committee made public last week, Sebelius wrote that she received $12,450 between 1994-2001 from Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers. But in addition to those campaign donations, records reviewed by The Associated Press show that Tiller gave at least $23,000 more from 2000-2002 to a political action committee Sebelius established while insurance commissioner to raise money for fellow Democrats. 

Sebelius did not tell senators about that additional money, although Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., asked specifically about any Tiller donations to her PAC. 

"There was an oversight in the initial answer provided to the committee," HHS spokesman Nick Papas said Monday. "Obviously donations to the PAC are a matter of public record. The governor is updating the answer to this question and will resubmit it to the committee."

Read more here

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

If that is not socialism, what is?

04/04/2009 -

Washington’s Socialist Spendathon
The federal bailout exceeds 90 percent of U.S. GDP. If that isn’t socialism, what is?

By Deroy Murdock

Anyone who doubts that the Bush and Obama administrations collectively transformed America into a socialist state should consider this: For every dollar American citizens generated last year, the federal bailout consumed more than 90 cents in outlays, loans, and commitments.

Bloomberg News has tallied Washington’s spending and promises as it props up banks, insurers, automakers, and seemingly everyone except hardworking taxpayers who promptly pay their bills. Bloomberg deserves great credit for focusing on this constantly moving target. In its latest estimate, Bloomberg correspondents Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry reported on March 31 that the Federal Reserve, Treasury, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Department of Housing and Urban Development have saddled taxpayers with $12.8 trillion so far. America’s 2008 gross domestic product was $14.2 trillion. Hence, the federal bailout now equals 90.14 percent of GDP.

If that is not socialism, what is?

This $12,798,140,000,000 costs every American man, woman, boy, and girl $42,105. A family of four’s share of the bailout equals $168,420. Bloomberg reckons that this $12.8 trillion invoice is more than 14 times the $899.8 billion in U.S. currency coursing through the economy. This signals inflation ahead.

The only glimmer of good news is that actual outlays are only $4,169,710,000,000 to date. Think of the bailout as $4.17 trillion in spending on a credit card with a $12.8 trillion limit. While the bailout ultimately may not reach that higher figure, taxpayers are exposed up to that level.

Read more here

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Dodd Admits Role in AIG Bonus Scandal

03/19/2009 -

WASHINGTON -- For a while, the disappearance of an executive bonus restriction from last month's economic stimulus looked like sleight of hand worthy of a Las Vegas stage. No one could explain how the provision faded into thin air. On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged that his staff agreed to dilute the executive pay provision that would have applied retroactively to recipients of federal aid.

Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told CNN that the request came from Obama administration officials whom he did not identify.

The provision was the subject of new attention this week because, had it survived, it would have prevented the American International Group Inc. from granting $165 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products division.

While the House and Senate reconciled their different stimulus bills last month, the Treasury Department expressed concern with a Senate restriction on bonuses, noting that if it applied to existing compensation contracts it could face a legal challenge.

"The alternative was losing, in my view, the entire section on executive excessive compensation," Dodd told CNN. "Given a choice, this is not an uncommon occurrence here, I agreed to a modification in the legislation, reluctantly."

Read more here

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Tiller trial begins, pro-lifers gather

03/16/2009 -

Late-term abortionist George Tiller goes on trial in Wichita today. 

Operation Rescue and the Christian Defense Coalition have organized prayer rallies at the courthouse. Troy Newman heads Operation Rescue.
 
"To my knowledge, this is the first time [since 1973 that] an abortionist has been on trial for doing abortions...," says Newman. "And Christians are gathering to pray -- to pray for the jury, to pray for the judge, and ultimately to pray for justice for the preborn children."
 
Tiller faces 19 criminal counts of illegal late-term abortions. Newman explains those charges.

Read more here

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Steele disappoints conservatives on abortion, homosexuality

03/16/2009 -

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is under fire from social conservatives for telling GQ magazine that abortion is an "individual choice" and homosexuality is not. 

Despite declaring to GQ that women have the right to choose an abortion, Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Michael Steele has issued a statement saying he has always been pro-life and supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade.
 
Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, says in Steele's interview with GQ, he "sounded like he was on the payroll of Planned Parenthood."
 
"I'm encouraged that Michael Steele is on record now in support of the human life amendment. However, for the life of me I cannot imagine why he would have chosen to use the euphemistic language of choice. That's language that they came up with in the smoky back room of Planned Parenthood somewhere to try to hide the reality of what abortion is," he contends. "There is no such thing as pro-choice. You're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion."

Read more here

[Back to Top]   [Print]   [Share This]

Pastor Sentenced to Jail

02/21/2009 -

OAKLAND, Calif.: Today the Rev. Walter Hoye of Berkeley, California was sentenced to serve 30 days in county jail and fined $1,130.00 by Judge Hing of the Alameda Superior Court after being found guilty on January 15, 2009, of unlawfully approaching a person entering an abortion clinic in Oakland. The court is allowing Rev. Hoye to serve his time by an alternative method like community service. Rev. Hoye was also ordered to stay away from the clinic. However, Rev. Hoye refused this term of probation and would not agree to a stay-away order. Nonetheless, the judge is having the order drawn up and refused to accept Re