The Eagle Eye

We Are Not Homophobic

2009-11-04T12:39:00.001-05:00

In response to Maine rejecting gay marriage, once again, many in the homosexual community have deliberately or ignorantly labeled those who oppose this measure as homophobic. Well, being a Christian let me clarify this psychological diagnosis for the gay community. WE ARE NOT AFRAID OF YOU!!!!!

We oppose gay marriage simply because of our beliefs in the Bible and that the Lord is opposed to homosexuality. If God said it was ok, we would be ok with it too. But He isn't so we are not. Does this mean we hold ourselves as morally superior because we are heterosexual? No. We are human and we sin. We are not perfect and won't be until we reach our final destination.

We exercise our God given rights just as the gay community does. I tolerate your rights to vote in favor of this measure just as you SHOULD tolerate my rights to vote against gay marriage. I personally do not hate gay people and I would go to lunch or associate with gay people IF they understood and respected my beliefs. However, I find it ironic that the homosexual community are the ones who don't tolerate my views. That is the highest form of hypocrisy. Tolerance is not a one sided word.

Has Anyone Called Child Protective Services on our Government?

2009-08-10T13:35:00.004-04:00

I found out that I could get a credit card in my kids names. Since our credit cards have reached their limit from vacations and other luxury items we decided to open cards in their names to pay for actual expenses. I don’t even feel bad about it because now that my husband and I have run out of money paying for some fun things for all of us, they need to now contribute to the household and since they don’t have jobs this is the only option. It’s really not a big deal, they will just pay for it when they turn 18. By then, it won’t be our problem.

Who is ready to turn me into Child Protective Services? Ok, I hope you have guessed by now that this is not true. I am not only socially conservative; I am also a fiscal conservative. I think credit cards are evil. But here is a question for you. Who is going to turn the government into Child Protective Services? They are neglecting our children. How is that possible? Well, the government is not only spending the money our generation is paying in taxes (or as the government calls it ‘borrowing from the public’), they now want to spend the money ‘loaned’ to them (I will not accept any responsibility in this) and our children and most likely grandchildren will have to pay for their debt (the governments) that will be transferred to our kids names.

Since our children are being taxed without representation and foreign interests are holding that debt, are we not selling our children into indentured servitude? They won’t be free. They will not even be slaves to their own debt. They will be slaves to their parents government debt and to foreign interests. According to http://www.justfacts.com/nationaldebt.asp , “As of July 15, 2009, the official debt of the United States government is $11.6 trillion ($11,579,428,713,952).[1] This amounts to:
• $38,083 for every person living in the U.S.[2]
• $99,153 for every household in the U.S.[3]
• more than $236,000 for every U.S. household that pays more in federal taxes than they receive in benefits from the federal government[4]”

To see who is buying America go to: http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

I think you will find it worthwhile that in the top 10 are two Communist countries. China is number one (and you wonder why we let all those lead tainted products into the US) and Russia (oh seriously, they are pretty much back to their Communist ways).

So they i.e. our government wants to go on a spending spree, stick our children with the tab and enslave them to Communist countries. They will have to change our motto from ‘Land of Free and Home of the Brave’ to ‘Land of the Slaves and Home of the Frivolous’. Don’t you think enslaving our children is a negligent crime?

Gays and Christians Uniting; Now They Make Strange Bedfellows

2009-07-28T10:33:00.004-04:00

I am quite positive the title of this blog has received much attention from people who read it. Some are thinking…. is she caving to a modern ideology? Well, the answer is no. But to those who regularly oppose me, don’t go anywhere; there is something in this for you too.

Let’s just be rational citizen’s of the United States for a moment. What do you think of when you think of a free Nation? Freedom, liberty, free to pursue happiness, being able to uphold your religious convictions without interference from government or man? Now, let’s look at a ‘cliff notes’ version of our Countries history in the form of morality, religion and homosexuality.

Those who settled in this Country fought, and died for an individuals right to ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, and did so under a religious framework. I know I know, some of you who oppose me fundamentally are getting upset…just wait…. your turn is coming.

This is a statement of fact. The number one quoted source for the founding documents and ideologies of this Country are centered in the Bible…. whether you agree with the Bible or not. The settlers of this Country wanted a place to avoid persecution, to be able to worship as they pleased and a decentralized federal government that quite frankly stayed out of their business with the exception of military protection and basic vital services (post office, emergency services etc.) This definitely was accomplished…momentarily.

Flash forward to the 21st Century. Children cannot pray in schools (though the Bible was the first textbook used under the ‘Old Deluder Satan Act’), people who purchase the Bible are probably red tagged by the CIA while those who purchase the Koran are not because that would be considered “profiling”. And yet something worse has happened in this Country. The Bible believing Christians who “stick to their source” and rely on their God have been led astray by the evil in our world. They have forgotten the biggest commandment of them all, “love they neighbor as thy self.” Does God say, “Love only those whom you agree with and are living according to your ideology?” No. He said, “above all else love one another.” Now, don’t misinterpret what I am saying. He did not say accept all beliefs, moral ambiguity and sins that people commit as OK. In fact, Jesus said to oppose these acts. But He also said, regardless, to love one another. I would go to lunch with and be seen with a homosexual, as long as they understood I did not agree with their lifestyle. Because I truly love all people and will not apologize for that nor for my spiritual beliefs. There are more to homosexuals than just their homosexuality.

Ok homosexuals, enter, you. I would like to apologize on behalf of all the “Christians” in the world that sat outside your functions and held signs telling you that you are going to hell because God “hates fagots”. Believe me, these people are truly not Christians. I am quite sure they will have to answer to the Lord someday for their “hate”.

Now, Do I agree with homosexuality? No. We could get into a long debate over this and I am familiar and comfortable with debating this topic but that is for another day…. and if anyone requests a topic on this I will oblige. But for now, let’s look at the reality gays and Christians face together…yes, together.

Whether you believe in and agree with Christianity or not; whether you believe in or agree with homosexuality or not, we all have a common purpose and a common mistake. Christians, although we have a right to vote and speak up about our spiritual beliefs and we need to do so because of the groups that want to destroy our right to do so; usually many of us vocalize our beliefs in a way that is sometimes mean spirited and causes more harm than good. Although I will always oppose the act of homosexuality etc., I also teach my children, that no matter who people are, and what THEY choose, we ALWAYS respect AND love them. We live in America. America is the LAND OF THE FREE. I am free to vote my beliefs; LGBT’s (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders) are free to vote theirs. But the same is said of many homosexual groups like the one that stormed Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan in the middle of their service. That was done in hate as well. So it seems that apologies are needed from both sides as well as forgiveness.

So, enter media. They and extremists groups on both sides of the aisle somehow partnered together and decided to create a “hate war” amongst us. If you are gay, you hate Christians because they oppose your lifestyle. If you are a Christian you hate gays because they are trying to take away your lifestyle. And this has played out in Hollywood, the media and everything other facet of our society. Let’s face it; the media has gone above and beyond to create controversy, dissension and mean-spirited debates on both sides of the aisle for their own ratings. They have exploited both groups.

Well I say enough is enough. I have one question to pose to both groups. What if we said in a plain voice, you vote your mind, I will vote my mind, and our democracy (Republic) rules. Whoever has the most votes on these issues, wins. No mean spirited intentions. I know this seems to be quite a simple solution with complex situations but lets look at it from another perspective…the world governments…or possibly soon…One World Government!

In the early years of America, Christians had a lock, stock and barrel Christian land. They prayed, read the Bible, and nobody disputed the status quo, for better or worse. But now, there is a new “in”; which says to be gay is ok. Here is my question to the gay community. Right now you are asking the government to dictate to the people whether based on “majority rules” or not to decide for your lifestyle and against democracy. When your lifestyle was voted against in California you tried to overturn democracy because you didn’t like the outcome. So now, you want to push and give money to and press for a government that is no longer a democracy but a Socialist government that will promote your lifestyle and oppose the Christian one.

What happens if and when (since this was never believed to be possible in a Christian Nation) the same government turns its back on you because of a rampant “homosexual” disease like AIDS that the gay community has already acknowledged as their disease and the government, that you gave all the power to, decides scientifically speaking, that a male and female monogamous relationship is the ONLY way to thwart this disease. It is now illegal once again to be homosexual in any way, it is illegal to engage in sex outside of marriage or live with one another before marriage. The power you lobbied for and pushed for to overthrow democracy for your cause now works against you. You just made your own coffin.

So my question to the American people. Would we rather debate and vote amongst ourselves? Keep the government truly for the people, by the people and for the people? Flush out our differences in a democratic process and still maintain a love and level of respect for one another despite our differences? Or give all of the above up for a tyrannical government that was given its power by our dissensions?

I don’t know about the other Christians, or homosexuals, but I would rather “duke out” our differences democratically and maintain respect for one another than to give up complete rights to a government that views us like a bunch of adolescents imbeciles.

That Nagging Feeling

2009-07-23T19:21:00.003-04:00

I know the opening of this blog is going to be disturbing to many of you; but stick with me, you will understand the point of this blog in a couple of paragraphs.

My kids love the movie 'Home Alone' and we watch it A LOT! In fact we were just watching it. So....I began to think about Christmas. I love Christmas. I know I know....we have barely had an ounce of summer, and now I am talking about snow. But as we watched this movie I began thinking about how much I look forward to Christmas time and the spirit of Christmas. Not the commercial holiday but the old fashioned Christmas with family etc. Getting together, sending out Christmas cards, receiving them, thinking about years past, and all the good that seems to thrive in people at this time of year. Then.....it hit me.

After Christmas is New Year's Day. We all love New Year's Day because it begins a new year full of promises and all of the great things we are going to achieve. A disclaimer: those who know me know that I am a very optimistic and encouraging spirit. However, there is this one nagging issue that seems to plague me every New Year's Day......

On this day after all of my grandiose plans have been masterfully coordinated for how fit I am going to be, the career plans I will achieve, and the attitude changes I will make, I always think and harp on this one thought. By the end of the year, who isn't going to make it? Who is going to be the phone call that I didn't want to hear about? Who dies this year? I know, this is a terrible thought. But I have a very large family and an insane amount of 'friends of the family'. So as I write this we had our 'who isn't going to make it moment?' last week.

One of my dad's best friends. Someone that I remember from early elementary school. Although he was a wild spirit and never could be tamed he was such a loving man. He was only 54 years old and I know nobody was ready for him to leave. Although I only talked with him on the phone on occasion and saw him even less than that I will always miss him. I think even more than the fun conversations we would have (he lived far away) but the smile and complete belly ache laughter he always brought to my parents faces when they would visit him, or when he would come home to visit his family and friends.

So....even though New Year's Day is months away....I had that inevitable moment. Thank you for being such a good friend to my mom and dad. Rest in peace Marty! We love you!

Bitterness + Unforgiveness =Radical Feminism

2009-07-22T08:55:00.001-04:00

This is the last posting for feminism. I know we could go on forever but this topic has run its course for now. Here is the bottom line; feminism in its original intent, to right the wrongs of inequality in our society was needed. Women who needed to work, or chose a career rather than children, or even if a dad wanted to stay home and mom to work instead, needed a women’s movement. We needed to be able to vote, work and be paid equally for our contributions. As it obviously has not been clear before, I am very thankful to the women who fought for my rights to be able to accomplish everything I have in my life. So thank you to the women who made this possible for me.

Where I think the women’s movement veered was radical women who had a vendetta against men launched a campaign that went far beyond the original intent of this movement. Women who had a lot of bitterness (it is obvious in the quotes I have shared) and hatred toward men. When someone is bitter and lacks forgiveness for those who have offended or wronged them it leads to hate, it creates a hate culture, and eventually the hate ruins anything once considered good. Hate will ruin individuals; it will ruin an entire city, state and country (this goes for everyone who breeds hate, especially those who call themselves Christians.) The radical feminist movement of women’s liberation, destruction of marriage, every man is a rapist, and the sexual revolution, in my opinion, was spawned from angry and bitter women. Had they just felt it necessary to right the wrongs and forgive the rest, our country would be in a much better state than it is today.

I am still perplexed as I read and listen to many of these women who seemed otherwise intelligent promoting the ideal that women who have sexual relations with men and do not marry or require a commitment from the man deem this to be a higher form of respect for themselves and demand society respects them as well. A carnal man sees a woman who will sleep with him outside of marriage, and she is on the pill or some other form of contraception so he doesn’t have to worry about getting her pregnant, and if she does get pregnant she will abort the baby, and oh by the way, she has no intention of “being trapped in marriage”, and says, wow, I really respect her? No….he says yes, rights without responsibility! I don’t have to commit and get to “hook up”.

Women in this movement by lowering their morality standards have actually demanded less respect. Because women have lost respect for themselves, their body and have ditched any sense of morality, men have merely followed suit. And we wonder why we have a society of men that have a hard time committing to their families, addictions to pornography, and use the ‘b’ word like the word ‘the’. Another consequence of free love and radical feminism.

More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

2009-05-16T08:04:00.001-04:00

More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time
Also, fewer think abortion should be legal “under any circumstances”
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

qgpmcs1jxuwo2l6achm_cg

The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.

The May 2009 survey documents comparable changes in public views about the legality of abortion. In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion.

qg8phio020orbfpcihagma

Gallup also found public preferences for the extreme views on abortion about even -- as they are today -- in 2005 and 2002, as well as during much of the first decade of polling on this question from 1975 to 1985. Still, the dominant position on this question remains the middle option, as it has continuously since 1975: 53% currently say abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

When the views of this middle group are probed further -- asking these respondents whether they believe abortion should be legal in most or only a few circumstances -- Gallup finds the following breakdown in opinion.

Americans' recent shift toward the pro-life position is confirmed in two other surveys. The same three abortion questions asked on the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey were included in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 12-13, with nearly identical results, including a 50% to 43% pro-life versus pro-choice split on the self-identification question.

fmyujfx3z0stmsiariccdq

Additionally, a recent national survey by the Pew Research Center recorded an eight percentage-point decline since last August in those saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases, from 54% to 46%. The percentage saying abortion should be legal in only a few or no cases increased from 41% to 44% over the same period. As a result, support for the two broad positions is now about even, sharply different from most polling on this question since 1995, when the majority has typically favored legality.

Republicans Move to the Right

The source of the shift in abortion views is clear in the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey. The percentage of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) calling themselves "pro-life" rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

r6nv3ssnjeo3e5rmjcp

j_lokucqe0ewmqfbanch1q

Similarly, by ideology, all of the increase in pro-life sentiment is seen among self-identified conservatives and moderates; the abortion views of political liberals have not changed.

vvturtjyp02thyhmqhwoyw

"Pro-Life" Up Among Catholics and Protestants

One of the more prominent news stories touching on the abortion issue in recent months involves President Barack Obama's commencement speech and the bestowal of an honorary doctorate degree on him at the University of Notre Dame -- a Roman Catholic institution -- on Sunday. The invitation has drawn criticism from conservative Catholics and the church hierarchy because of Obama's policies in favor of legalizing and funding abortion, and the controversy might have been expected to strengthen the pro-life leanings of rank-and-file Catholics.

Nevertheless, the swelling of the pro-life position since last year is seen across Christian religious affiliations, including an eight-point gain among Protestants and a seven-point gain among Catholics.

4auoozlleuscjeh5xxxwlw

Gender Agreement

A year ago, Gallup found more women calling themselves pro-choice than pro-life, by 50% to 43%, while men were more closely divided: 49% pro-choice, 46% pro-life. Now, because of heightened pro-life sentiment among both groups, women as well as men are more likely to be pro-life.

Men and women have been evenly divided on the issue in previous years; however, this is the first time in nine years of Gallup Values surveys that significantly more men and women are pro-life than pro-choice.

hcruux

lx0zsc1heuwiaymzmsrhsq

Bottom Line

With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans -- and, in particular, Republicans -- seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.

It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,015 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 7-10, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Gallup Poll Daily results are based on telephone interviews with 971 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 12-13, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

CNN and their Socialist Commentary of the Tea Party

2009-04-18T17:22:00.001-04:00

Christianity and the Coming Dissolution of the United States

2009-04-11T17:33:00.003-04:00

This is Dr. Mitchell Lanbert's response to my blog regarding 'Are We A Christian Nation?' I do appreciate the time he takes to respond to my blog postings. If you want to view his blog it is: http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/

Christianity and the Coming Dissolution of the United States
Conservative Chloe's Eagle Eye blog takes activist judicial interpretation of the Constitution to court.

Chloe argues that Jefferson and other of the Founding Fathers believed in a literalist interpretation of the Constitution. Quoting Jefferson:

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

As well, Chloe points out that the Founding Fathers saw this as a Christian nation. Quoting the Northwest Ordinance, signed by President George Washington:

"Religion, morality, and knowledge, necessary to good government and happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

Chloe argues that America is a Christian nation. Supreme Court and other rulings that have overturned the Founders' original intent are illegitimate.

Recently, I received an e-mail from Baruch College, a campus of the City University of New York, as is my employer, Brooklyn College. The e-mail said that Baruch College was holding a colloquium on whether the Constitution should be abolished. The academics involved were indifferent to republicanism, limited government or restrictions on government to steal, murder, loot, mismanage and oppress. These academics are ignorant of history. In short, they are quacks.

Conservative Chloe makes a good point. However, the resolution of these differences is hard. I do not believe that the Supreme Court of today functions as a legitimate institution. It is not authorized by the Constitution to write law, but it has repeatedly done that. It has done so in the name of changing social values. Yet, the Supreme Court does not represent Americans' values and has no mechanism to be aware of them.

The justices on the Supreme Court are taken from the ranks of elite universities. Elite universities are overtly antagonistic to traditional American values. I would add that quack social theories; medieval belief systems concerning socialism and how economies ought to work; and primitive attitudes toward the legitimacy of state violence and murder, especially as concerns left-wing or communist dictatorships and murderers are common. A murderer like Che Guevara is eulogized in these circles, as are failed, stupidly conceived medieval economic systems such as those of the Soviet Union and Cuba.

Trained in the primitive ignorance characteristic of American universities, the Supreme Court of the United States reflects neither prevalent social attitudes and mores nor any kind of evolution. They are a medievalist, reactionary body whose aim is to assist the far left in imposing aristocratic and monarchical systems on the American people through a total state similar to what existed in Russia in the 14th century.

The question is how to resolve this dilemma. On the one hand, the quackademics agitate ceaselessly for medieval government through what they pathetically call "progressivism". At the same time, real Americans favor progress through economic evolution, free markets, innovation and the free circulation of ideas, free of the unlimited authoritarian state that left-wing academics and their pupils on the Supreme Court advocate.

The conflict is one of an unstoppable force and an immovable object. The end result will be dissolution of the United States.

There is no reason why Conservative Chloe should be forced to share this nation with the thuggish, left wing knuckleheads who dominate Congress. Nor should people schooled in American history like Conservative Chloe be forced to share this country with ignoramuses who do not know that the Founders saw a militia and the ownership of guns as necessary to protect against the tyrannical state--the very kind of state academics and the US Supreme Court advocate.

The country ought to be broke up into several regions. The regions ought to reflect widespread values of large groups of Americans. Each region ought to be free to form its own constitution as far as economic and social values. The Supreme Court ought to be decentralized into the several regions. The chief remaining duty of the federal government ought to be national defense. The federal government ought to be elected by the state governments and by the people. The regions should be free to decide on their own monetary, economic, social and religious policies.

America is simply too large to manage. The attitudes of the left, namely, the activist state, are incompatible with the ideals of the Founders. The failure of the activist state has, unbelievably, been met in left-wing and Democratic Party circles for calls for an ever more activist state.

The current federal government lacks legitimacy. It exists by force of violence. It is a tyranny.

Are We A Christian Nation?

2009-04-09T11:27:00.003-04:00

What if you found yourself standing before a judge, for violating a ‘quiet’ law? The law stated, “In places of expected levels of quietness such as a church, library or theater, there is an expected level of quietness and those who violate this law are subject to prosecution under the law”….or something to that effect. The prosecutor in your case was prosecuting you for screaming in the middle of a movie. What did you feel compelled to scream that would be cause for your prosecution? “FIRE – THERE IS A FIRE”! Although your screams saved hundreds of people from a deadly situation by alerting them to the fact that their was a fire in the theater, the prosecutor decided to make a case against you because you still technically “broke the law”. Does this sound absolutely absurd to you? Would you have your lawyer argue the intent of the law, or the spirit in which the law was written did not take into consideration an act of civil disobedience that saved lives and therefore the framers of the language of this particular law would have not meant for this unintended consequence?

This same scenario has played out over the course of the past one hundred years as activist judges have ruled in court, based on their own interpretation of the law and worse, their interpretation of the Constitution and other documents created by our Founding Fathers.

Currently, when a new law or Amendment to a Constitution (State or Federal) is adopted, there is usually no documentation attached to the law that gives the citizens a look into the spirit in which the law was written. So, before us we have laws, that sometimes are unfortunately left open for interpretation, thus, giving judges more latitude in their decisions because there is no further explanation such as the example I gave above. If perhaps in my scenario there was documentation and a reason behind this law, the judge could have interpreted that the law was not meant to target people yelling for purposes of danger. However, this just may be a loophole that was left out in the law. So, if a judge wanted to “stick it to” a person, they could under this law.

Where am I going with this you ask? Well, the misnomer of the Separation of Church and State and other laws that were meant to protect our religious liberties. If our courts and judges desired a result other than the Separation of Church and State; which is one of the most egregious forms of judicial activism ever abused in this Country; they merely could have looked at the spirit of the law in which it was written. I could cite so many quotes from those who framed our Constitution and form of government that you would have to read for a month. But thankfully David Barton has written a book, which explains all of this much more eloquently than I could ever attempt. In his book, ‘Original Intent’, he gives an example of a ‘Holy Trinity Court’, which cited 13 similar cases as the one I described in the opening and where the court concluded, “the spirit of a law should always prevail over its letter.” They explain:

The legislators used general terms…. and thereafter, unexpectedly it is developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough to reach cases and acts which the whole history and life of the Country affirm could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the duty of the courts under the circumstances, to say that, however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within in the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.

In other words what is the intent of the legislation, or to sum up the above statement, as the wise President Thomas Jefferson was quoted as admonishing Court Justice William Johnson:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

And Justice James Wilson: “The first and governing maxim in interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”

In other words, what was the intent of the Founding Fathers when the framed the Constitution? Specifically the First Amendment; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

If the activist judges that created case law determining that this is meant to be interpreted as the ‘Separation of Church and State’ would have been honest in their dealings with this Amendment and recollected the spirit of intent that our Founding Fathers manifested in this document they would have come to the conclusion that it does not mean freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. In all the quotes of the Founding Fathers regarding the framing of our government the number one quoted source was the Bible. Does that sound like separation of church and state to you? When they included this Amendment it was to be free from persecution and to not have a state or federal sponsored religion like other Countries.

The Northwest Ordinance, Article III signed into law by President George Washington:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, necessary to good government and happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

So, do you think that activist judges purposely ignored the intent of our Founding Fathers which clearly by their own words and definition stated we are a Judeo-Christian Nation where people are free to practice or not practice their faith and created their own interpretation of our Constitution? Or do you think our Founding Fathers truly meant for us to be a secular Nation?

Whether you are a Christian or not, is your personal decision. However, don't let activist liberal judges and others re-write your Nation's history and hijack our Country.

In my next blog I will further discuss the Christian origins of our Nation and the history of education in America.

The 912 Project

2009-03-15T15:19:00.003-04:00

Several people who missed the Glenn Beck segment 'You Are Not Alone' on Friday asked me what it was about. So I thought I would briefly inform people interested in this new 'movement' called the 912 project. Basically you have a choice to be one of three kinds of people in America: 1) a 910er, those of us who choose to live our lives like September 10th, 2001, oblivious to what is going on around them, and with heads buried in the sand; 2)a 911er, those who walk around in constant fear of their world and what is happening in this Country as we all were on September 11th 2001, or 3) a 912er, those who are a watchman at the gate, standing up for this Country and going back to our core principles that have made this Country great. Becoming the next "greatest generation". See the opening to Glenn Beck's Friday edition. It is inspiring. If you double click on the video it will take you to youtube.com and you can watch other segments from this show.

The website he has put together regarding this new movement is www.the912project.com. Hopefully it will inspire you as it has me to do something about the state of our Country.

For those of you that have seen the movie 'The Pursuit of Happyness' with Will Smith, the real man Christopher Gardner, the movie was based on is also a part of the 912 project. Check out this clip from Glenn Beck.

Watch Glenn Beck

2009-03-11T18:16:00.001-04:00

Watch Glenn Beck this Friday at 5pm on Fox News. Make sure to watch it!!!! I can guarantee you will be more informed than you have ever been.

2009-02-24T14:14:00.003-05:00

12 Year Old Almost Disqualified for her Freedom of Speech

2009-02-17T16:02:00.001-05:00

By Kathleen Gilbert

TORONTO, February 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 12-year-old "Lia" of Toronto has become a star at her school and on Youtube with her five-minute pro-life speech, crafted for a school competition. Despite discouragement and outright opposition, Lia's presentation was so well done that she reportedly won the contest she was told she would be disqualified from, due to the "controversial" message of her speech.

The speech is available in its entirety on Youtube, where it has been viewed over 100,000 times and sparked a heated discussion. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOR1wUqvJS4&feature=chann...)

"What if I told you that right now, someone was choosing if you were gonna live or die?" begins the charismatic seventh-grader in a practice recording of the speech posted on Youtube. "What if I told you that this choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you'd done in the past, or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you, you could do nothing about it?

"Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation. Someone is choosing without even knowing them whether they are going to live or die. That someone is their mother. And that choice is abortion."

Lia, speaking easily and with sunny enthusiasm, fires off answers to several common objections in the brief speech.

"Why do we think that just because a fetus can't talk or do what we do, it isn't a human being yet?" She asks. "Some babies are born after only five months. Is this baby not human?

"We would never say that. Yet abortions are performed on 5-month-old fetuses all the time. Or do we only call them humans if they're wanted?

"Think about the child's rights, that were never given to it. No matter what rights the mother has, it doesn't mean we can deny the rights of the fetus," she said. "We must remember that with our rights and our choices come responsibilities, and we can't take someone else's rights away to avoid our responsibilities."

Lia's mother says that the topic was of her own choosing, and that she was determined not to back down, even after teachers told her it was "too mature" and "too controversial."

"She was also told that if she went ahead with that topic, she would not be allowed to continue on in the speech competition," Lia's mother wrote in the email to the Moral Outcry blog. "Initially, I tried helping her find other topics to speak on, but, in the end, she was adamant. She just felt she wanted to continue with the topic of abortion. So she forfeited her chance to compete in order to speak on something she was passionate about."
The mother told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that the girl's homeroom teacher was supportive of Lia's speech even though she was pro-choice. "After helping Lia do the speech she said, 'It really got me thinking,'" the mom noted.

At the schoolwide competition, the mom said one pro-choice teacher on the judge's panel "didn't even want to hear" the speech, and stepped down from the panel before Lia began. After the speech, which Lia's family said was well-received by both students and teachers, the judges initially told Lia she had indeed been disqualified. But controversy among the judges eventually led to a reversal, and Lia's family learned the next day that the panel agreed the girl deserved to win the competition.

"There was a big stink about it, and we volunteered to step down ... but her teacher said 'No, she won fair and square, so she'll keep going on," said her mom. Lia is expected to present her speech at a regional competition tomorrow night, representing her school.

When asked what inspired Lia to pursue the topic so adamantly, her mother said it was "a little mystery."

While the family espouses pro-life Christian values, "it's not like we're out every weekend picketing," she said. "It was just something really deep in her heart, and she just felt really passionate about it." She added: "I kind of snicker when I see people on the Youtube video [comment box] saying 'Oh, her mother forced her to do this' - I'm like, 'No, I'm on the other end, trying to make her pick another topic!'

"But she was just really passionate about it, and she has her research on it," said the mother. "I really believe it's just something that God put in her heart."

You Were Bamboozled!

2009-02-14T09:17:00.002-05:00

This is outrageous. I encourage everyone to take the time to look up Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid and your own senators and representatives and tell them you plan on booting them from office if they supported this Stimulus Plan. No GOP and 7 Democrats voted against it. One of the main reasons, NOBODY GOT TO READ WHAT IS IN THE BILL.

Leadership pushed the bill through, they said the American people would have access to the contents of the bill for 48 hours and that did not happen. Not even our own representation had a chance to read it. Didn't the Democrats in power promise transparency and a "new day when we all work together?". You should be completely outraged at this blatant slap in the face of our right to be informed and represented. Stimulus without representation. I suggest you start getting involved or we will be another a powerless socialist country.

Michigan Senate Bill 122

2009-02-02T14:41:00.002-05:00

Ok, I have decided to regroup, refocus and get back on track. My attempt is to focus on Michigan politics for awhile, although I am sure that many of our issues will overlap into national issues. So in the spirit of this great state here is my first topic for Michigan.

Senate Bill 122 introduced by Senator Clark-Coleman (D) – in layman’s terms; this bill changes the school requirement that children report to school if they turn five by December 1st of that current school year. Under the current law, a child is required to report to school if they turn six by December 1st of the current school year.

For instance, under the current law, if I felt my child was not socially, intellectually or just not ready for school I would not have to send my child to Kindergarten until they are 6. If this new proposed bill passes, if my child was four years old and yet was turning five before December 1st of the current school year, my child would legally have to report to school.

The main question is, why would they change this requirement? And several subsequent questions are as follows:

Why would they take away the judgment call of the parents to determine when their child is ready for school?

Why would the government want to force children into school at an even younger age when many children are held back for this very reason?

What benefit do children receive from this law?

What benefit does the government receive from the law?

Does this usurp parental rights to decide what is best for our children or do the education bureaucrats truly know what is best for our children?

While this is conjecture I will definitely stake claim in the fact that the reason they are attempting to change this requirement is multi-faceted. While all the benefits are for the state and none for the children. This bill is really quite brazen, greedy and arrogant if one analyzes the intent behind this legislation.

1. First and foremost what would the educational community gain from this new requirement? After all, many times children are not ready at this age, especially boys who develop mentally at a slower rate than girls and the teachers have a harder time trying to keep all of their students at an even learning place. So what happens, then the children need to be sent to special reading classes because they are behind, or they need extra help which requires more programs or teacher aides etc. to help these children and that costs…..oh wait a minute. Money. Could that be it?

Yes, the first answer I believe, is what is known as the root of all evil…..money. When children enter school they have a price tag attached to their cute little heads. In Michigan, I believe it is $6,700. So, the more children we have in school the more money the educational community will receive from the government. Who else has the mentality that "the more kids I have the more money I get from the government"…..people with a welfare mentality. You can't deny the educationcrats are starting to walk like a duck.....

So the first reason I believe for this bill is money. Our children are little piggy banks. Remember, money is power.

2. They have actually developed and attempted to justify these new programs called “early education.” The education bureaucrats would like to have 0-5 (ages of children) enter early education programs (eventually required by law) and have this be an extension of the k-12. 13 years isn’t long enough to attempt to indoctrinate our children into your liberal ideology? Now you want to get a hold of OUR children from birth to ensure the parents are not our children’s main source of adult authority and say in their lives? If you think I am exaggerating and that these people truly respect your authority as a parent consider the following quotes:

In Allegan County ISD literature they state, “We must stop thinking of zero to five (preschool years) and K-12 (the school years) as two separate entities. They are, in fact, two facets of the same thing.”

National Education Association, in their In Brief newsletter, stated: “Radical right extremist are also attempting to impose a curriculum that mirrors their values and inculcates fundamentalist Christianity….In communities all over the country, members of the religious right have attempted to impose censorship and the teaching of creationism on the public schools.”

Are those comments too benign for you? How about these quotes:

National Education Association in Today’s Education (1983-1984), “The NEA believes that communications between certified personnel and students must be legally privileged. It urges its affiliates to aid in seeking legislation that provides this privilege and protects both educators and students.”

In other words, they don’t want parents involved in possible major decisions and issues children may be having. They should change their NEA mantra to “what happens at school, stays at school”. They are attempting to take away a parents authority and rights.

Former NEW President Catherine Barrett made clear the objective of the National Education Association when she said, “Dramatic changes in the way we raise our children in the year 2000 are indicated, particularly in terms of schooling…..When this happens – and it’s near – the teacher can rise to his true calling. More than a dispenser of information, the teacher will be a conveyor of values, a philosopher…We will be agents of change.”

Last line sound familiar? She spoke these words in 1973. This has been their main objective from as we early as the 1940’s. I will go into that in another blog.

So if you question the reasoning behind this piece of legislation that seems so insignificant, just remember, the frog that jumps in a pot of boiling water will jump out. A frog in a pot of cool water will boil to death because it does not realize the temperature is being turned up incrementally. Call Senator Clark-Coleman and oppose this legislation.

Congratulations President Barack Obama

2009-01-21T10:12:00.002-05:00

Although I do not agree with most of his proposed policies and voting record I couldn't help but feel a twinge of happiness and pride for President Obama as he took office yesterday. Even though I did not vote for him; since a liberal taking office was the will of the majority I am grateful they chose not to vote an African American President into office but they decided to look past color and vote the person into office they felt best fit their ideologies.

I am also pleased that President Obama chose a conservative Pastor to pray at the inauguration. He did not bend to the pressures of many of his liberal and atheist supporters. I know he chose someone that he truly felt was genuine. He chose to include people in his inauguration that he does not necessarily agree with fully and I do appreciate that.

I am sure I will oppose him on many issues but I will continue to pray for him that he will seek the Lord and I hope the American people will do the same. Just remember, even though the people voted him into power the one who is all powerful is God.

America America Sat on a wall America America Had A Great Fall

2009-01-19T10:23:00.003-05:00

Read the content below. Even if you feel you have heard this grand and yet unfortunate story of our Country before....stick with it, you will learn something.

Once there was a great nation -- "founded by pilgrims who decided to leave their own country which didn't encourage freedom of religion." They migrated to an uncivilized land inhabited only by savages. The rock where they landed was to become a national shrine.

They drove off the natives, built rude shelters and houses or worship, setting aside a special day to give thanks.

These pilgrims believed in their God and they also believed in work. They established schools that in a way became the first public, free education in the world.

Other colonists came and established other communities. And some of the noblest words ever written began to surface. Facades of our modern buildings bear some of them 'liberty', 'justice', 'freedom of worship'.

Then an older nation sent tax agents to exploit the colonists. The colonists sent their greatest men as representatives to a general assembly, choosing a gentlemen farmer as their leader. He united them and won the war against the 'old world'. That farmer is know as the 'father of his country'. Today a famous U.S. city is named after him.

Ultimately, a civil war divided the fledgling country. Its leader who tried to keep the Republic united was assassinated. His murder has been immortalized by one of the greatest playwrights of all time. After the wounds of the bloody civil war healed, the nation became a world power.

Next the citizens began to think of security paid for by tax money. Farmers petitioned for price supports. The government bought up crops and stored them in warehouses. Industrialists were next to ask for tax benefits. The middle class declined under the added tax burden. Crime became so commonplace it was dangerous to walk the streets at night.

A crippled man led the nation into a war and foreign entanglements.

A general who had been victimized by government pleaded with the nation to return to the principles of the found fathers. He died bitterly thinking his anguished thoughts.

An honest senator dared to speak out for a halt to foreign aid and foreign subversion. He was branded a reactionary. The nation fell deeper into debt. It joined a league of the world. Increased taxes to send wheat to its enemies, devalued its currency, substituting base materials for silver in its coins.

The Nations name? ROME! I skipped a couple of lines to tell you that, lines that are facts of history. Mr. Rekstad had summed up that the nation Rome was totally corrupt, its middle class dead. The barbarians moved in and destroyed civilization.

The parallel to our own history is almost eerie, so much one wonders if we can avoid the last couple of sentences. The rock where those first Romans landed is called the pilgrim's rock--foundation of the Temple of Jupiter. The gentleman farmer was Cincinnatus; the assassinated lead Julius Caesar; the crippled leader--Caligula; the general Mark Anthony and the honest Senator Cicero. Shakespeare of course is the playwright who immortalized the death of Caesar.

Above was an excerpt from 'Stories In His Own Words' The Everyday Wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

Roman was a thousand year empire, we are already on the edge of collapse how long will we continue if we don't get a clue as Americans?

New Year Prayer Challenge

2008-12-31T09:57:00.001-05:00

With the state of affairs in the world today I would like you to check out a new blog http://noplacelikehomemi.blogspot.com

There is a prayer challenge for 2009. Read the postings and you can submit prayer requests and they will have everyone praying over each others prayer requests. The Lord will protect those who seek Him.

Angels Watching Over Us! Merry Christmas!

2008-12-23T14:03:00.003-05:00

Photo captures image of an 'angel' in Charlotte hospital
In dark time, mom of Mint Hill teen sees light of hope
By Jane Duckwall - Special Correspondent to the Charlotte Observer
AddThis
email this story to a friend E-Mail print story Print Reprint
Comments (24)
Recommend (11)
Text Size:
tool name
close
tool goes here

When Chelsea Banton was born five weeks prematurely, doctors predicted she had 36 hours to live.

Proving them wrong was the first miracle for Chelsea, now an Independence High School freshman.

“She spent the first four months in a neonatal intensive care unit,” recalls her mother, Colleen Banton of Mint Hill.
chelsea angel

This photo shows an “angel” of light Chelsea's mother saw at Presbyterian Hospital in November.

- Colleen Banton /Special to the Charlotte Observer
chelsea angel - chelsea

Colleen Banton (left) with daughters Chelsea (center) and Kaylee on Friday.

/Charlotte Observer
CLICK TO HIDE PHOTOS

* chelsea angel
* chelsea angel - chelsea

*
*

Before Chelsea was 2, she was admitted to the hospital for pneumonia, the first of several dangerous run-ins with the illness that have made her a familiar face in Presbyterian's pediatric intensive care unit.

Among other health problems in her medical history: hydrocephalus, requiring a shunt in her skull and, later, several shunt revisions; life-threatening viruses; and, this past July, fluid retention that required more than a week's hospitalization and three liters of liquid to be drawn from her body.

Prayer has helped sustain the whole family.

“We had been praying every day, my oldest daughter and I and Chelsea,” Colleen Banton said. “…Praying for a miracle.”

That miracle, Colleen believes, came Nov. 5 – seven weeks after Chelsea was admitted to the hospital for pneumonia.

What originally seemed like a bad cold nearly killed her.

“She was on life-support from the moment she got there,” her mother said.

That was Sept. 21. Over the next six weeks in the hospital, Chelsea faced one threat after another: pneumonia in her left lung, then her right lung, then sepsis, blood clots, staph infections, E. coli, a collapsed lung and feeding problems.

In late October, doctors met with the family to discuss “a plan of action,” Colleen said. One of the decisions she had to make was whether she would take Chelsea off the ventilator. Earlier, doctors had removed Chelsea from the ventilator several times, but had replaced it when the struggle to breathe became too difficult for the teen.

But a family meeting Oct. 31 was a turning point.

“At that point, the family… agreed that when she did come off the ventilator again, (they) weren't putting it back in,” Colleen said. “Whatever happened, would happen.”

On Saturday, Nov. 1, “they took her off the ventilator and she did good,” her mother said. “She was breathing on her own.”

The next day, “her stats went down,” and doctors put her in an oxygen mask.

But over the next few days, Colleen noticed her daughter “wasn't getting better. Things were kind of lingering.”

And Chelsea, who had been having anxiety attacks and crying throughout her hospital stay, was having more of them.

“I said, ‘She's been through enough,'” Colleen remembers. “I said, ‘Can we just take her mask off? She's been through enough.'

“I wanted to do what the Lord wanted me to do. And I really felt like I've had her for 14 years, and if it's time for her to go to heaven, then I know she'll be healed.”

The mask didn't come off immediately, though. They waited until family members had a chance to come to see Chelsea – perhaps for the last time.

On the afternoon of Nov. 5, as family and friends prayed about the decision, a nurse practitioner called Colleen's attention to a monitor showing the door to the pediatric intensive care unit.

“On the monitor, there was this bright light,” Colleen recalls. “And I looked at it and I said, ‘Oh my goodness! It looks like an angel!”

Colleen pointed her digital camera at the monitor to take a photo of the image, but the “first picture wouldn't take.”

She tried again and succeeded. The image gave her a peace that stayed with her when hospital staff removed Chelsea's oxygen mask.

And then, “when they took the mask off of her, her stats went as high as they've ever been.

“Her color was good, and the doctors and nurses were amazed,” Colleen said. “The nurse practitioner who saw the image in the monitor said, ‘I've worked here 15 years, and I've never seen anything like it.'”

Chelsea was removed from intensive care on Nov. 14 and went home three days later.

Her mother believes it was a miracle – attended by a very real angel bathed in light at the door to the pediatric intensive care unit.

“What was so ironic… is it was a rainy day,” Colleen said. “It had been overcast all day. And the sun only came out at that point.”

To those who doubt her story and photograph, Colleen Banton says: “If they doubt it, that's fine. … But I know what I saw, and the picture's untouched. I didn't make it up. That's just something that I believe.

“I believe that more people have changed since this happened. I know I have. I look at things differently than I used to – because I know God is in control.”

On Christmas Day, Chelsea will turn 15 – another miracle considering all of the medical trials she's faced, according to her mother.

“I'm learning,” Colleen Banton said, “that every day she's alive is a miracle.”

They Cannot Seriously Consider Caroline Kennedy?

2008-12-18T16:22:00.005-05:00

Below is a blog from Dr. Mitchell Langbert. He has posted several of my blogs on his page in the past and I have posted some of his blogs on my page as well. The absurdity of what these "agents of change" promote is myopic at best. While I have nothing personally against this women except that she is an aristocrat who is as inconsequential about human life as our Governor in Michigan; this woman has nothing to offer at this point except her name.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Kennedy Rates New York and New York Rates Her
Governor David A. Paterson has not yet appointed Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat but the proposition seems to have an air of inevitability. Hopefully it won't occur. New York has a different style of corruption from Chicago. In Chicago the governor sells Senate seats for cash. In New York, cronyism, incompetence and legislated theft are the rule.

With respect to Sarah Palin, who does not come from a wealthy background and did not attend an Ivy League university, the Democrats and their television propagandists were eager to criticize her inexperience and make fun of her abilities, despite her having been elected to governor and having held an executive position. Let's see what kind of experience Caroline Kennedy has.

Besides being the scion of a wealthy family, Kennedy attended Harvard and Columbia, and so is acceptable to Progressives and their propagandists. She worked at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. After marrying, Kennedy lived on Park Avenue for about 20 years, unlike Wasilla an address acceptable to Progressives, and had two children. Kennedy holds a legal degree and has co-authored several books. She worked for two years in a $1 per year, part-time staff job for New York City's Department of Education. She was a successful fundraiser, raising over $65 million for New York's schools. She is also on the board of the American Ballet Theatre.

This is impressive experience indeed. Impressive, that is, for a rich housewife. The most impressive thing about Caroline Kennedy's resume is that it is probably the lightest weight resume of any serious contender for Senate in New York's history. It is impressive that someone with a resume this thin would be taken seriously for a City Council, much less a Senate seat.

What would make a lightweight like Kennedy think that she ought to be Senator? Her politically correct, socially acceptable ideology? Her rich family? Her attendance at expensive private schools? All of the above?

America has been in the process of devolving from a republic into an aristocracy. Kennedy represents not the natural aristocracy that Jefferson anticipated, but a throwback to the Federalist belief in an aristocracy based on family connections and inherited wealth. Caroline Kennedy's application for New York's Senate seat represents a deeper and more profound corruption than the Blagojevich scandal.

A second-rate mayor who bought his way into City Hall has recently been able to repeal the term limits law, undoubtedly through intelligently placed contributions and pressure. A city that has banished its middle class, destroyed tens of thousands of jobs and presented unlimited eminent domain and real estate development opportunities to developers who have failed to produce value but have managed to suck the state and city dry. A state that has seen more hard working people exit than any other state and has become a two-tiered society devoid of economic opportunity. A state that has banished freedom in favor of corrupt wealth and aristocracy, all in the hypocritical name of helping the poor.

Carolyn Kennedy rates New York, and New York rates her.

Oops I Think They Did It Again

2008-12-17T15:54:00.001-05:00

Another Indiana Planned Parenthood Caught Covering up Felony Rape

By Kathleen Gilbert

INDIANAPOLIS, December 16, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The group responsible for an undercover exposé of a Bloomington Planned Parenthood clinic's disregard for Indiana law has just today released more footage, revealing nearly identical behavior in an Indianapolis clinic.

The pro-life student group known as Live Action Films went to the Georgetown at 86th Health Center, where UCLA student Lila Rose posed as a 13-year-old seeking an abortion after having relations with her 31-year-old "boyfriend."

Rose first told a Planned Parenthood staffer that she was 13 and wanted an abortion but didn't want her boyfriend to get in "trouble" because of his age. The staffer assured her, "We don't really care about who - what the age of the boyfriend. It's consensual. It's your choice."

After Rose volunteered the boyfriend's age, the staffer turned her over to Janet, a Planned Parenthood counselor. There Rose again described her situation - a clear case of statutory rape under Indiana law, and punishable as a felony, one that Planned Parenthood is obligated by law to report immediately.

The counselor responded: "Well a lot of people will say, well, you know. Yeah, he, he is over such and such. And you can do statutory rape and whatever but it's going to be in the papers. So most people will threaten stuff and don't go through with it."

The counselor objected when Rose related the boyfriend's age. "I don't care how old he is," she insisted.

When Rose said she did not want her mother to find out about the boyfriend, the counselor advised Rose to circumvent Indiana's parental consent laws by having her abortion in another state: "The surrounding states don't have parental consent. I can't tell you any more. So think about the states that are surrounding Indiana and do some research."

Finally, Janet coached Rose on what kind of abortion method to use in order to keep the entire affair secret from her mother. "If you're trying to really hide it I don't recommend the medication one," she said, referring to a chemical abortion that would result in the ejection of the baby's corpse hours later.

"I don't recommend that with your situation. Well, if you are in labor and pain for 10-12 hours, what's your mom gonna say? It would be harder to hide."

(To see the Live Action video, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTxsWZz9whg)

The video is the second in a series known as the Mona Lisa Project, which exposes Planned Parenthood's routine law evasion in an effort to end the organization's federal funding.

The first video, released earlier this month, showed a Bloomington Planned Parenthood nurse who also told Rose she "didn't want to know the age" of the felon and advised her to circumvent Indiana consent law. The employee was quickly fired.

On Monday, Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter launched an investigation of Planned Parenthood in response to the Bloomington footage. Indiana State Representative Jackie Walorski and right-to-life advocacy groups, including American Life League, publicly called for the investigation. In 2005, the Attorney General also sought the records of 84 Planned Parenthood patients under the age of fourteen who may have been victims of sexual abuse, but Planned Parenthood sued to prevent their release.

Rose commended the Attorney General's efforts. "We applaud Mr. Carter's integrity and urge him to conduct a thorough and complete investigation, despite any political attacks Planned Parenthood may attempt against him personally or his office."

Rose challenged Planned Parenthood to cooperate. "Planned Parenthood must release files they have previously sued to keep private and allow state authorities to conduct a complete investigation." She added, "Mandatory reporting laws are necessary for the protection of young girls, and Planned Parenthood must not be allowed to sabotage them."

To find out more about Live Action Films: http://www.liveactionfilms.org

See previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Planned Parenthood Suspends Employee Caught Covering Up Rape of 13-Year-Old
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08120403.html

Planned Parenthood Escapes Legal Charges after Now-Former Employee Caught Covering up Rape
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08121108.html

I Hope Obama Considers This

2008-12-16T07:15:00.001-05:00

Under the tide of his "transparency in government" theme several people he has either appointed or is considering appointing are under investigation for shady practices. Now Gov. Bill Richardson, Rahm - His Chief of Staff, and his buddy Blagojevich whom he campaigned for extensively. Is Obama in on the dealings or bad judge of character?

Grand Jury Probes Richardson Donor’s New Mexico Financing Fee
Email | Print | A A A

By Martin Z. Braun and William Selway

Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) -- A federal grand jury is investigating how a company that advised Jefferson County, Alabama, on bond deals that threaten to cause the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, did similar work in New Mexico after making contributions to Governor Bill Richardson’s political action committees.

The grand jury in Albuquerque is looking into Beverly Hills, California-based CDR Financial Products Inc., which received almost $1.5 million in fees from the New Mexico Finance Authority in 2004 after donating $100,000 to Richardson’s efforts to register Hispanic and American Indian voters and pay for expenses at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, people familiar with the matter said.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation asked current and former officials from the state agency if any staff members in the governor’s office influenced CDR’s hiring, said the people, who declined to be identified because the proceedings are secret. Richardson, who is President-elect Barack Obama’s designate for Commerce Secretary, has a staff of at least 30 people.

“They’re looking at everything related to CDR,” William Sisneros, the finance agency’s chief executive officer, said of the FBI probe. “They’re just trying to evaluate all the relationships to see what CDR was doing for the money.”

Nationwide Investigation

The investigation reflects another front in nationwide efforts by U.S. prosecutors to investigate so-called pay- to-play in the municipal bond market. The term refers to banks and advisers who make political contributions or personal gifts to public officials in return for fee-paying financing assignments.

On Dec. 1, Birmingham, Alabama’s mayor, Larry Langford, was charged by federal prosecutors with soliciting $235,000 in loans, expensive clothes and jewelry from Montgomery, Alabama-based bond underwriter Blount Parrish & Co. Langford, the former president of the Jefferson County Commission, included the firm on bond and derivative deals that netted it about $7.1 million. CDR, which wasn’t named in that indictment, advised Jefferson County on the derivatives.

The New Mexico probe comes two years after the FBI searched CDR’s offices as part of a nationwide investigation into whether banks and advisers conspired to overcharge local governments on financing deals. That probe by the New York office of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division is ongoing, and CDR says it is cooperating.

No Complaints

A company spokesman denied wrongdoing in New Mexico.

“To suggest that there’s a pay for play element is just inaccurate,” said CDR’s Allan Ripp. “There was no involvement by the governor. CDR knows for certain that they were selected on the basis of their track record.”

New Mexico finance authority officials haven’t complained about the company’s advisory work.

Richardson, a 61-year-old Democrat, is a former U.S. Energy Secretary who ran for president in 2008. He served 15 years in Congress and was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 1997-98. He was a consultant to Salomon Smith Barney Inc., a unit of New York-based Citigroup Inc., from July 2001 to January 2003.

Elected New Mexico’s governor in 2002 and re-elected in 2006, Richardson appoints five directors to the New Mexico Finance Authority’s 12-member board, including the chairman. Five other directors are members of his cabinet.

CDR’s Contributions

CDR made $1.48 million advising the authority on interest-rate swaps and restructuring escrow funds for $1.6 billion of transportation bonds issued by the agency, according to state records.

Interest-rate swaps are derivatives, or contracts whose value is derived from assets including stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities, or from events such as changes in interest rates or the weather. Borrowers use them to lower costs and reduce their exposure to swings in interest rates.

In October 2003, CDR President David Rubin gave $25,000 to Moving America Forward Inc., a political action committee formed by Richardson, disclosure forms show. Seven months later, CDR, known then as Chambers, Dunhill, Rubin & Co., gave $75,000 to ¡Si Se Puede! Boston 2004 Inc., formed to help pay expenses at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, where Richardson was chairman.

Cooperation Expected

“The Governor’s Office is aware of questions surrounding some financial transactions at the New Mexico Finance Authority,” said Gilbert Gallegos, a spokesman for Richardson. “We expect any state agency that is approached with federal officials” to cooperate, he said, declining to comment further. Calls to Richardson were directed to Gallegos.

Darrin Jones, an FBI spokesman, declined to comment, as did Norman Cairns, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Albuquerque. CDR’s lawyer, Richard Beckler, a partner at Howrey LLP in Washington, declined to comment. Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki declined to comment.

A member of the agency’s board, Craig Reeves, said he was asked by federal agents about hiring CDR and whether the donations had any role.

‘Many Things Discussed’

“That was one of many things we discussed,” he said, declining to comment on the specific scope of the investigation. He said no one at the governor’s office discussed retaining CDR with him when the decision was made.

One of the people called to testify before the Albuquerque grand jury said federal investigators asked if Richardson’s office directed the state agency to select CDR. Investigators also asked about how responses to a request for investment advisory services were scored.

Another person familiar with the probe said the thrust of the investigation is whether people in Richardson’s office influenced the selection of CDR. The person said the U.S. Attorney identified subjects of the investigation, not targets, which means prosecutors have yet to gather substantial evidence linking anyone to a crime.

To be charged with a felony, a person has the right to be indicted by a grand jury, the U.S. Constitution says. The panel of 16 to 23 people is meant to act as a buffer between prosecutors and their suspects, said James Montana, a former federal prosecutor and partner with Chicago-based law firm Vedder Price.

Grand Jury

Acting in secrecy mandated by law, grand juries review documents and hear evidence from victims, witnesses and occasionally the subjects of the investigation.

While the Justice Department will sometimes give a target notice of an investigation and invite that person to appear, neither step is required and such appearances are “extremely rare,” said Montana. To indict, 12 of the grand jurors must agree there is probable cause a crime was committed.

CDR advised the New Mexico Finance Authority on the purchase of swaps from New York-based Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., UBS AG of Zurich and Royal Bank of Canada in Toronto as part of Richardson’s $1.6 billion transportation proposal in 2003.

GRIP Bonds

Richardson’s plan -- known as GRIP, Governor Richardson’s Investment Partnership -- called for refinancing more than $400 million of the state’s existing transportation debt and selling new bonds through the finance agency to pay for improvement projects. CDR earned $951,566 for advising on derivatives tied to the bond issues and $443,265 for restructuring the escrow funds of the refunded bonds, agency documents show.

David Harris, the executive director of the state finance agency when the interest-rate swaps were done, was Richardson’s deputy chief of staff before he was appointed to the agency. He was also interviewed by the FBI, said Paul Kennedy, his lawyer. Kennedy declined to comment further.

CDR was hired after responding to a Dec. 30, 2003, request for proposals from the New Mexico Finance Authority for investment advisory services.

Splitting the Mandate

Six companies answered the request, which contained two questions out of 39 items related to experience with interest-rate swaps and guaranteed investment contracts. A joint venture from Smith Barney and New York-based Ryan Labs Inc. received the top score of 99 percent. CDR had the second-highest score of 97 percent, authority records show.

Rather than select the Smith Barney/Ryan Labs team as both investment and swap adviser, the authority’s then- Chief Financial Officer, Keith Mellor, recommended splitting the mandate. The agency gave the swap adviser job to CDR, which received the same score as the Smith Barney/Ryan Labs team on the swap section of the proposals, authority records show.

The chair of the committee that recommended CDR’s selection, Rick Homans, declined to comment. At the time, Homans was the Secretary of New Mexico’s Economic Development Department. He now serves as the secretary of the Taxation and Revenue Department.

IRS, SEC

In a March 10, 2004, memo to the finance authority’s board, Mellor said the agency chose CDR as swap adviser because it specialized in assisting state and local governments, including the University of New Mexico, with derivatives. The authority’s board approved the selections at its meeting later that month.

“It may not be surprising that the state would have split the assignment based on what they measured or assessed to be respective strengths,” CDR spokesman Ripp said.

CDR, which Rubin founded in 1986, has been involved in investigations by the Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice into whether banks and brokers conspired to rig bids on municipal derivatives and profit from deals at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

The IRS probed whether CDR and banks including Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Corp. and the former Bear Stearns Cos. of New York conspired to overcharge municipalities such as Atlanta; Fargo, North Dakota; and Johnson City, Tennessee, for contracts to invest bond proceeds and then split the profits.

Philadelphia Fees

In 2002, Bank of America fired an employee in its municipal derivatives department after he told his manager that he paid $182,393 to CDR and two rival banks and another adviser on transactions in which they played no role, according to records from the NASD and North Carolina’s state court in Mecklenburg County.

Bank of America said in February 2007 it would cooperate with the Justice Department in its national investigation of bid-rigging and price fixing in the municipal derivatives market.

CDR also advised states and local governments on the purchase of interest-rate swaps.

In April 2001, CDR hired Ron White, a bond lawyer and chief fundraiser for Philadelphia Mayor John Street, as a consultant, paying him a $5,000 retainer to help the company win business with the city. Rubin donated $15,000 to Street between December 2000 and June 2003, according to Pennsylvania state filings.

‘Move Fast Forward’

In addition, CDR gave White three tickets to the 2003 Super Bowl in San Diego and provided a limo ride to the game. White brought along Philadelphia treasurer Corey Kemp, according to a federal criminal indictment brought against White and Kemp in 2004.

On Feb. 11, 16 days after the game, Kemp told White that city Finance Director Janice Davis agreed to “move fast forward” on a $150,000 swap advisory contract for CDR, according to transcripts of FBI wiretaps.

Banks paid CDR, which wasn’t accused of wrongdoing, at least $515,000 from profits they earned on transactions with the city, documents show.

“The firm has never participated in any pay for play,” CDR’s Ripp said. “Contributions are publicly disclosed. The firm contributes to candidates and campaigns it supports.”

Mayor Arrested

CDR also was paid $1.8 million to advise Jefferson County, Alabama, on more than $5 billion of interest-rate swaps, meant to lower borrowing costs on $3.2 billion of sewer bonds.

A combination of soaring rates on the bonds and interest-rate swaps is threatening the county with a bankruptcy that would exceed Orange County, California’s default in 1994. Jefferson County paid JPMorgan and a group of banks $120.2 million in fees for derivatives that were supposed to protect it from the risk of rising interest rates.

Those fees were about $100 million more than they should have been based on prevailing rates, according to James White, an adviser the county hired in 2007, after the SEC said it was investigating the deals.

Ripp has said CDR stands by the pricing of the swaps and said White’s estimates were incorrect because they didn’t take into account the county’s credit profile, collateral provisions between the county and the banks and the precise time of the derivative trades.

Proud of Work

CDR’s Ripp declined to comment on the arrests in Jefferson County, saying “the firm is certainly proud of its work for the county.” Langford, the Birmingham, Alabama, mayor, has denied wrongdoing in connection with the county’s bond deals. Langford’s attorney, Thomas Baddley, didn’t return a call seeking comment. A telephone call to William Blount, the chairman of Blount Parrish & Co., wasn’t immediately returned Sunday.

The IRS challenged the tax exemptions on municipal bond deals that CDR worked on, including one for a New Mexico housing agency, and proposed the bonds be subject to federal income tax. The IRS said in April 2007 that the company pocketed fees drawn from earnings on invested bond proceeds that should have been paid to the U.S. Treasury.

“As in all lease-to-own transactions, this was a unique, customized structured financing that was vetted and scrutinized closely by bond counsel as well as the issuer and all deal participants,” CDR has said.

‘Massive Boxes’

In September 2007, CDR settled allegations by the SEC that it committed securities fraud for failing to disclose that it received secret fees on Florida bond deals from New York-based American International Group Inc., the insurer rescued this year by the Federal Reserve in Washington. CDR and AIG neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.

In New Mexico, the finance agency was first contacted by the FBI in August, said Sisneros, who was appointed after the CDR deals were done.

The agency, which is cooperating, has given investigators “massive boxes” of documents related to the bond and swap deals, he said. Investigators called with follow-up questions as recently as three weeks ago, said Rey Romero, the agency’s general counsel.

Sisneros and board chairman Stephen Flance, a developer, met with investigators in August.

“None of the board members are under suspicion as far as I know,” said Flance, who said he hadn’t been subpoenaed.

To contact the reporters on this story: Martin Z. Braun in New York at mbraun6@bloomberg.net; William Selway in San Francisco at wselway@bloomberg.net.

Get Your Own Holiday

2008-12-10T09:59:00.001-05:00

Every year we anticipate Christmas. The season of giving, of beautiful decorations, families get together, Santa and most importantly, the day Jesus was born and gave hope to a world on the fast track to hell.

Without Jesus being born, there would be no Christmas. Santa would not have been created, and retail stores most certainly would not see that significant boost in sales they rely on every year to bring their bottom line out of the red.

So, how do these retail stores thank Jesus for this Christmas Season? By Cow towing to the liberal atheist party poopers who are hell bent (literally) on destroying the real reason we even began celebrating CHRISTMAS in the first place.

I have a message to all of those people who want to take Christ out of Christmas, the Manger off of City Hall property, Santa out of the lives of children and replace it with their generic “Holiday Season”…GET YOUR OWN HOLIDAY!

Seriously, we could solve the whole “Christmas” vs. “Happy Holidays”. During the Christmas season we have Merry Christmas everywhere. The stores can feel free to enforce this holiday saying. We can have the Manger on public property; Santa can deliver presents to children without fear of protestors. Then when Christmas is over, you can create and have your own “Happy Holiday” generic festivities. There are 365 days in a year, pick one. Why do you insist on taking our Christian holiday and destroying it? Since the liberals promote themselves as the “intellectuals” in this Country it baffles me that they have yet to come to this resolution. Aren’t they the ones that want diplomatic relations with terrorists and to resolve conflict without war? Yet they cannot even come to a diplomatic conclusion on a treasured day in this Country?

Well, I just solved the Nations ills during this time. Just let us Christians and others who celebrate our day with us have our Merry Christmas and thank you for coming Jesus day; and when you want to have your “Happy Holiday” and we will be sure to respect your day as well.

They Are At It Again

2008-12-02T16:11:00.001-05:00

DeMint: Capitol Visitor Center Fails to Honor Faith
@ 2:31 pm by Hill Staff

Delete Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) from the list of admirers of the new Capitol Visitor Center.

DeMint issued a statement Tuesday criticizing the new facility for "omitting the history of faith." DeMint noted that the new tourist spot ignored his request to include the phrase "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance.

DeMint said the center, which opened Tuesday, also has displays that are "left-leaning and in some cases distort our true history."

Here's DeMint's full statement:

“The Capitol Visitor Center is designed to tell the history and purpose of our nation's Capitol, but it fails to appropriately honor our religious heritage that has been critical to America’s success. While the Architect of the Capitol has pledged to include some references to faith, more needs to be done. You cannot accurately tell the history of America or its Capitol by ignoring the religious heritage of our Founders and the generations since who relied on their faith for strength and guidance. The millions of visitors that will visit the CVC each year should get a true portrayal of the motivations and inspirations of those who have served in Congress since its establishment.

“The current CVC displays are left-leaning and in some cases distort our true history. Exhibits portray the federal government as the fulfillment of human ambition and the answer to all of society’s problems. This is a clear departure from acknowledging that Americans’ rights ‘are endowed by their Creator’ and stem from ‘a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.’ Instead, the CVC’s most prominent display proclaims faith not in God, but in government. Visitors will enter reading a large engraving that states, ‘We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.’ This is an intentional misrepresentation of our nation’s real history, and an offensive refusal to honor America's God-given blessings. As George Washington stated clearly in his first inaugural address:

‘…[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge.’

“The fundamental principles of the freedom we enjoy in this country stem from our Founding Fathers’ beliefs in a higher power, beliefs put forth in the Declaration of Independence and manifest throughout our Constitution,” said Senator DeMint. “If we cease to acknowledge this fact, we may cease to enjoy some of the freedoms we take for granted. We must not censor historical references to God for the sake of political correctness. And we must truthfully represent the limited form of government the Constitution lays out so that our ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.’ So help us God.”

The Beginning of the End?

2008-11-23T15:52:00.002-05:00

Recently there has been a flurry of talk surrounding the possibility that Barack Obama could be the anti-christ. The history channel has devoted several of their programs to the ‘end times’ and the anti-christ. The alarmism and gloom and doom attitude in society these days can either spark curiosity or create further cynicism on this topic. So I decided to take this opportunity to take a look at the Biblical, factual, prophetical etc. evidence and let you decide if we are in the “end times”.

Dr. Mitchell Langbert (http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/) recently posted two pieces on the anti-christ and Barack Obama. As soon as the topic of the end times and the anti-christ are discussed there are usually four reactions: 1) Oh whatever, people have been saying that for years; 2) I don’t want to hear about that, it’s too doom and gloom; 3) I agree and it is exciting to be living in this day and age; 4) You are crazy, stop talking.

I understand why people feel the way they do in all categories. There is a sensationalist and alarmist mentality people often espouse in uncertain times and many feel these people who are leaning on their faith are “weak minded” and incapable of “coping with reality.” If you don’t believe in God, or further Jesus, some of the ideologies are hard to grasp.

To begin this blog in detail I know we all agree (for believers) that God says, “no man, not even Jesus, knows the day and the hour”. This is true and any person that says they know exactly when the Lord is coming is not from the Lord or seriously deceived. However, Jesus himself said in Luke 12:48b-13 "When you see a cloud rising in the west, you immediately say, 'It is going to rain'; and so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, 'There will be scorching heat'; and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?” The Lord commands us to pay attention to the sign of the times. What exactly are those signs Jesus directed us to observe?

Luke 21:10, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes, famines and pestilences in the various places, and fearful events and great sighs from heaven.”

1. Nations will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. The past 100 years has seen more wars and bloodshed then in all of the previous centuries of the last millennium (at least) combined. According to globalsecurity.org currently there are 42 conflicts and wars simultaneously being fought in the world. Iraq, Iran, Russia, Darfur, Sudan, ethnic cleansing, North Korea, Afghanistan, Taliban, Al Queda. Side note: Why is it that the whole world seems to be focused on such a minute piece of property known as Israel? Of all the land in the world it seems this is a hotbed of activity. Israel is a tiny little Country and yet is one of the most hated in the world. Have you ever asked yourself this question? Isn’t it interesting this is exactly what the prophets, the Book of Revelation and Jesus prophesied would happen? He said the world would converge on Israel.

2. There will be earthquakes.
The Bible says earthquakes would become more frequent, intensify and happen in diverse places. According to one statistic, in 1970 there were 4,139 earthquakes, in 2005 that number increased to 30,461. Recently (within the last month) there were over 400+ earthquakes recorded between Hawaii, Alaska and Nevada. And I believe if you include the U.S. and Puerto Rico there were over 700 (most in remote places thus no major reporting). It seems every time we turn around we hear about another earthquake happening in a different part of the world.

3. Famine
The 20th century has been by far the worst time of famine the world has ever seen in intensity and deaths. According to worldhunger.org 12.6% of the world population is now undernourished. In the 21st century the first eight years are 250% higher in terms of famine and deaths due to famine than in the last 10 years of the previous century. We are now hearing about world food shortages on a regular basis. Again, several different men prophesied this in the Bible.

4. Pestilences
14-17 million people are dying each year from infectious diseases. That does not include non-infectious diseases. According to the Inter-governmental Organization Committee, they are expecting an inevitable flu pandemic that will kill 50 million people worldwide. They are also discussing super bugs such as Malaria, TB and Cholera that are mutating and becoming resistant to anti-biotics. 100 million people will die of HIV alone. There are over 100 different types of cancer mutations that kill over five million people each year.
The Bible predicts there will be pestilences due to beasts of the field (Bird Flu, Hanta, Bubonic Plague etc.) and that 1/3 of the population will die from these diseases.

5. Revived Roman Empire

According to raptureready.com and most other biblical scholars the European Union is the Revived Roman Empire and the last Empire before Christ’s return:

“After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.”
Daniel 7:7-8
“Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.”
Daniel 7:23-24.
The fourth beast is the revived Roman Empire, and the 10 horns represent the Kings of its member nations. The little horn, speaking great words, rises up and conquers three of those nations and their Kings. The little horn is Antichrist, who will rise to power through the revived Roman Empire. Of the 10 horns, three are subdued, likely because these three will resist the rise to power of Antichrist, and will object to his far-reaching powers. From this kingdom, and the reign of Antichrist, a global system of apostate religion, politics, and economics will come to fruition. Antichrist will temporarily rule over the entire earth during the three and one-half years of the Great Tribulation.

According to ShalomJerusalem.com: We are living at a time in which it is not only possible for a world dictator of unprecedented authority to emerge-the Antichrist— it is also inevitable. God’s Word states that only seven empires will exist in world history before Christ returns. The verse proving this statement is Revelation 17:10, "There are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." The five fallen empires referred to by John in this verse are Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece. The one that ruled at the time John wrote the Book of Revelation was Rome. One more final empire would arise, but there would first be a long delay. That global power would be the "revived Roman Empire," a scenario we addressed briefly in an earlier question. From this final group of nations the figure known as the Antichrist emerges and reigns for a brief period—just eighty-four months.

The last Roman Emperor was deposed in 476 a.d. and now the European Union i.e. the Revived Roman Empire has once again come to power. They will be in power in the last days. Unfortunately America is barely mentioned if at all (there is a mystery Babylon who, “in one hour has thy judgment come." This could refer to America and its downfall).

6. Nations Aligning Just as the Biblical Scripture Declares:

Ezekial 38:1-2 The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog (Russia), the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal…..

Ezekial 38:4-6 I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with the your whole army—your horses, your horsemen, fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. Persia (Iran), Cush and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops.

For the first time in history Russia (Magog), Iran (Persia) and other Muslim Countries are aligned just as the Bible prophesied thousands of years ago. This is happening at the same time as all other previous prophecies mentioned in this blog.

7. Israel will once again become a Nation

Israel was destroyed in 70 A.D. and the Israelites (Jewish) were scattered among the world just as prophesied in Isaiah. The major fulfillment of prophecy was to be when Israel would “in one day” become a Nation. This miraculous prophecy occurred May 14, 1948. The Jewish community once again under the threat of attack formed and proclaimed its own nation on May 14, 1948 for their own protection. And even more miraculous is that even though he was pressured from the U.S. State Department to not recognize Israel, Harry Truman officially recognized their Country on May 14, 1948. For almost 2,000 years this Nation had ceased to exist and literally in one day “a Nation was born”. Below are Bible quotes among others that prophesy this event:

Isaiah 66:8 Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things?
Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion (Israel) in labor than she gives birth to her children.

Ezekial 37:21 "Thus says the Lord God: ' surely I will take the children of Israel
from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land."

Jesus said that those who see these events will not pass away before the coming of the Lord.

If you would like to go the non-Biblical route the Mayans, Sybil, Nostradamus, I Ching, the Web bot predictions, the Oracle of Delphi, Hopi Tribe, Merlin, Mother Shipton all prophesied about the date December 21, 2012 as something catastrophic.

St. Malachy in 1139 of Ireland predicted 112 popes accurately until what he said would be the last Pope (this will be the next Pope).

While I do not engage in witchcraft, and I look to the Bible as my sole source of “what is and what is to come”, it does lend credence to the accuracy of the Bible that all of these ancient and modern predictions align with the signs of the times we are now seeing that are predicted in the Bible.

Feel free to Google all those mentioned above to see exactly what they predict.

One final thought. If you were a lawyer and had to gather evidence to support your case that these are the end times I would say that all the facts converge on this point in time. We don’t know the precise moment, the day or the hour but if you were standing on a ledge between heaven and hell knowing the floor would drop any minute and had to make a choice of which way to jump or default to hell, I think that choice would be pretty clear. Have you made that choice or will you let the floor drop from underneath you?

Serbian Abortionist Who Aborted 48,000 Babies Becomes Pro-Life Activist

2008-11-13T16:06:00.000-05:00

MADRID, November 13, 2008 (CNA) - The Spanish daily "La Razon" has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former "champion of abortion." Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after spending 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country.

"The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue," the newspaper reported. "Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares."

In describing his conversion, Adasevic said he "dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence. The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. 'My name is Thomas Aquinas,' the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint. He didn't recognize the name."

"Why don't you ask me who these children are?" St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream.

"They are the ones you killed with your abortions,” the Dominican saint told him.

"Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions," the article stated.

"That same day a cousin came to the hospital with his four months-pregnant girlfriend, who wanted to get her ninth abortion - something quite frequent in the countries of the Soviet bloc. The doctor agreed. Instead of removing the fetus piece by piece, he decided to chop it up and remove it as a mass. However, the baby's heart came out still beating. Adasevic realized then that he had killed a human being,"

After this experience, Adasevic "told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions. Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so. They cut his salary in half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter the university."

After years of pressure and on the verge of giving up, he had another dream about St. Thomas.

"You are my good friend, keep going,” the man in black and white told him. “Adasevic became involved in the pro-life movement and was able to get Yugoslav television to air the film 'The Silent Scream,' by Doctor Bernard Nathanson, two times."

Adasevic has told his story in magazines and newspapers throughout Eastern Europe. He has returned to the Orthodox faith of his childhood and has studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

"Influenced by Aristotle, Thomas wrote that human life begins forty days after fertilization," Adasevic wrote in one article. Scientific advancements since Thomas’ time, however, have revealed that human life begins at the moment of conception. La Razon commented that Adasevic "suggests that perhaps the saint wanted to make amends for that error." Today the Serbian doctor continues to fight for the lives of the unborn.

Next Week

2008-11-07T07:48:00.000-05:00

I am working on a lengthy blog that should be up sometime this weekend or by Monday. Sorry for the delay.

Seriously?

2008-11-03T19:53:00.002-05:00

This is what our nation has come to. A bunch of people who give up their rights in return for a little financial security. See clip below.

Obama an Early Student of Man Who Dedicated Book on Community Organizing to Satan

2008-10-30T12:17:00.001-04:00

Below is an article on lifesitenews.com

Wednesday October 29, 2008
Obama an Early Student of Man Who Dedicated Book on Community Organizing to Satan

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a Fox News blog column last week, contributing columnist and writer James Pinkerton re-examines a low-lying, but indisputable connection in Sen. Obama's history that, he says, voters should know about. The lines connecting Barack Obama and Saul Alinsky have in the past been explored in some detail, including in a lengthy piece published in the Washington Post in March of 2007, but have largely flown under the radar in the final leadup to November 4.

"Could Lucifer play a role in this presidential election?" writes Pinkerton in his column.

"It may sound crazy, but one of the candidates in this race has publicly praised, even emulated, a writer-activist who himself paid tribute to Lucifer. That’s right, Lucifer, also known as the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub—you get the idea.

Pinkerton wryly observes, "If you’ve never heard of this true fact - and most Americans obviously haven’t - well, that might help to explain why John McCain is behind in the polls."

Pinkerton explains that Obama was a disciple of Saul Alinksy, the Chicago agitator who wrote key works on the methods of left-wing revolutionaries.

In one such book, "Rules for Radicals," Alinsky wrote: “Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgement of the very first radical, from all our legends, mythology, and history … the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”

Sen. Obama is on the public record as being an avid admirer of Saul Alinsky, the man who defined the type of community organizing in which Obama spent his younger years - years that Obama said “gave him the best education of his life.” Ironically, he also said that it was during this time that he "learned the true meaning of my Christian faith."

According to the Post, Obama's political career began when Alinsky's disciples hired the newly-graduated Obama, who was already a follower of Alinsky's thought, to study and implement Alinsky's methods to organize black residents of the South Side.

When The New Republic interviewed Mike Kruglik, one of Obama's early teachers in Alinsky's methods, Kruglik called Obama "the best student he ever had."

According to the Post, even after attending Harvard Law School Obama "continued to teach the Alinsky philosophy."

In his article, Pinkerton asks, "So why hasn’t he [McCain] highlighted the Alinsky-Lucifer connection? Why hasn’t the McCain-Palin ticket raised this issue, knowing full well that if the candidates say it, reporters have to cover it?

"Good questions."

Other than David Freddoso's book “The Case Against Barack Obama” and a smattering of Internet coverage, says Pinkerton, the "Alinksy-Lucifer" connection has gone sorely underreported.

According to Pinkerton the Obama-Alinsky connection is simply one more piece of information about Obama that, when added to the mix, helps prove that the Democratic candidate is not on the same wavelength as most Americans.

"Had McCain really gone after Ayers AND Wright AND Alinsky-Lucifer, all at once," wrote Pinkerton, "he would have had a strong argument that Obama was, and is, well out of the mainstream."

See the original FOX News blog article:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/jpinkerton_1023/
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102912.html

Obama's Education Groups Funded Controversial Organizations in the '90s, Tax Returns Show

2008-10-28T07:56:00.000-04:00

Obama's Education Groups Funded Controversial Organizations in the '90s, Tax Returns Show
Barack Obama's boards gave tens of thousands to ACORN and more than $1 million to racially charged organizations, a study of tax returns shows.

By Maxim Lott

FOXNews.com

Monday, October 27, 2008
1
x

in order to recommend a story, you must login or register.
443 Comments | Add Comment

*

Photos

FILE: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn walk with their son in New York in 1982. (AP Photo)

FILE: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn walk with their son in New York in 1982. (AP Photo)

The Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund of Chicago funded numerous controversial groups while Barack Obama served on their boards between 1995 and 2002, an analysis of their tax returns shows.

In 2001, when Obama was a part-time director of The Woods Fund of Chicago, it gave $75,000 to ACORN, the voter registration group now under investigation for voter fraud in 12 states.

The Woods Fund also gave $6,000 to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, which Obama attended. The reason for the donation to the church is unclear -- it is simply listed as "for special purposes" in the group's IRS tax form.

It gave a further $60,000 to the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University, which was founded and run by Bernardine Dohrn, the wife of domestic terrorist William Ayers and, with her husband, a former member of the 1960s radical group the Weather Underground.

Other controversial donations that year included $50,000 to the Small Schools Network -- which was founded by Ayers and run by Michael Klonsky, a friend of Ayers' and the former chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), an offshoot of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society -- and $40,000 to the Arab American Action Network, which critics have accused of being anti-Semitic.

The Woods Fund did not respond to questions about the funding.

When Obama co-chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which calls itself "a public-private partnership improving education for 1.5 million urban and rural public school students," it gave to some of the same groups -- partnering with ACORN to manage funding for schools and giving over $1 million to the Small Schools Network.

It also gave nearly $1 million to a group called the South Shore African Village Collaborative, whose goals, according to Annenberg's archived Web site, are "to develop more collegial relationships between teachers and principals. Professional development topics include school leadership, team building, parent and community involvement, developing thematic units, instructional strategies, strategic planning, and distance learning and teleconferencing."

But the group mentions other goals in its grant application to the Annenberg Challenge:

"Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us," one page of the application reads.

Click here to see the application.

Stanley Kurtz, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, found the collaborative's original application when going through Annenberg's archives.

Asked to comment, Yvonne Williams-Kinnison, executive director of the collaborative's parent group, the Coalition for Improved Education in South Shore said, "I don't want to put more fuel on the fire. You can call us back after the election.... I don't want to compromise the position."

Late Afrocentrist scholars Jacob Carruthers and Asa Hilliard were both invited to give SSAVC teachers a training session, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge noted in a report, adding that the "consciousness raising session ... received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey session."

But Carruthers has been a controversial figure because of inflammatory statements he made in writing.

"The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy," Carruthers wrote in his 1999 book, "Intellectual Warfare." "Some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture."

In the book, he compared the process of blacks assimilating into American culture with rape.

"We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist," Carruthers said.

Hilliard has come under fire for advocating what many consider an extreme Afrocentric curriculum.

He selected the articles for the "African-American Baseline Essays" published in 1987 and first used in the Portland, Ore., school district. The essays have been criticized for claiming, among other things, that ancient Egyptians were the first to discover manned flight and the theory of evolution.

An Obama spokesman called investigation of these ties "pathetic."

"This is another pathetic attempt by FOX News to distract voters from the economic challenges facing this nation by patching together tenuous links to smear Barack Obama," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

"The Annenberg Challenge was a bipartisan organization dedicated to improving the performance of students and teachers in Chicago Public Schools that was funded by a Republican philanthropist who was friends with President Reagan and launched by Republican Gov. Jim Edgar."

But Kurtz says those founders of the Annenberg Challenge would not have known the details about to whom their Chicago office -- one of 18 around the country -- was giving money.

"If you read Ayers' proposal to Annenberg, it doesn't sound radical. But if you actually read Ayers' education writings, they are very radical indeed," Kurtz said. "Ayers, like so many other savvy professors, knows enough not to state his actual views frankly when applying for money. But you can find the truth in his writings."

The controversial donations make up only a small portion of the overall amount doled out by the Annenberg and Woods funds. The Woods Fund gave over $3.5 million to 115 different groups in 2001, and the Annenberg Chellenge dispensed nearly $11 million to 63 groups at its height in 1999.

Most of the groups are mainstream and well respected, ranging from the Jazz Institute of Chicago to the Successful Schools Project.

But Kurtz says that this should not obscure what he describes as controversial donations.

"If John McCain had given to white supremacist groups and people said, 'Hey, the majority of funding didn't go to supremacist groups' -- that wouldn't even cut the ice," Kurtz said.

"I feel certain [Obama] knew about these radical groups," Kurtz said. "We know that he read the applications because he made statements about the quality of proposals."

2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT

2008-10-27T07:40:00.000-04:00

Is this what we want for a President?

2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT

Barack's Extreme Views on Abortion

2008-10-23T12:23:00.000-04:00

See Video Below

Blogging and John McCain

2008-10-22T20:26:00.001-04:00

Ok, I have not been posting my own blogs because I have been busy working with interest groups during these last few weeks of the election. Once that is done I will be back. In the meantime, here is footage and an article on John McCain as POW.

POW Footage Released
US Elections Videos

* John McCain McCain's Amazing Documentary 5:03
* Barack Obama Barack's Family Matters 2:14
* Barack Obama with his maternal grandmother Obama Rushes To Sick Gran 1:59
* Colin Powell Powell On Backing Obama 0:45
* Josh Brolin as George Bush Bush Film Opens In US 2:31

Choose Your News
Personalise your news
Help

Use the drop down menu below to filter stories and videos the way you want - when you want it!
Pick your News

*
Horse fighting in the Philippines Fight Club Horse Horror chevron
*
Ellouise Statham Crash Victims: First Pics chevron
*
Kerry Katona Kerry Katona TV Shock chevron
*
Beach in Tobago Sex Attack On UK Tourists chevron
*
fritzl95 Fritzl 'Was Born To Rape' chevron
*
Katy Perry poses with knife Anger At Perry Knife Pose chevron
*
David Beckham in action for LA Galaxy AC Milan Bid For Beckham chevron
*
Matt Lucas Little Brit Comic Divorce chevron
*
Workers make their way into the City in London Brown Uses The 'R' Word chevron

10:09pm UK, Wednesday October 22, 2008
Footage of John McCain being interviewed as a bedridden prisoner during the Vietnam War has been released by the French national archive.

John McCain

McCain, who was filmed smoking, was emotional during the interview

The video portrays the Republican as a hero but the message may be tarnished as he is filmed smoking a cigarette.

In the footage an emotional and shirtless McCain passes a message to his wife saying he will get well and loves her.

He also describes being shot down over Hanoi in 1967, and parachuting into a lake.

At times, when speaking of his family, McCain's lower lip trembles and his voice breaks.

"I was on a flight over the city (Hanoi) ... and I was bombing and I was hit by a missile or anti-aircraft fire, I'm not sure which," he said, adding that his plane "when straight down."

After landing in the lake, McCain said he "was picked up and taken to the hospital, where I almost died."

In the interview, McCain said he was treated well by his Vietnamese captors. Asked about the food, he told his French interviewer, "It's not like Paris ... (but) I eat it."

French reporter Francois Chalais conducted the interview , which was first broadcast on French television program Panorama in January 1968.

The journalist's widow, Mei Chen Chalais, is seeking payment from several television broadcasters in France and the US for the unauthorised use of the footage.

Her lawyers have even written to the McCain campaign as its website features a few seconds of the footage, which Chalais said was done without her approval.

Hollywood's Intolerance and Stifling of Free Speech

2008-10-20T12:45:00.001-04:00

See article below.

Republicans in biz feel stifled, bullied
Conservatives claim their politics can have consequences

By Paul Bond

Oct 19, 2008, 10:00 PM ET
Related
Chetwynd: 'I stuck out like a sore thumb'
THR's Political Theater blog
At a recent event for Republicans in Hollywood, an actress was asked whether she had ever worn her pro-Sarah Palin pin to an audition.

"You must be joking!" she said with a laugh, adding, "But I see Obama stuff all the time."

It's no secret that the entertainment industry is overwhelmingly liberal -- political donations this presidential cycle from the movie, TV and music industries recently were running about 86% Democrat versus 14% Republican. But being outnumbered is one thing, being bullied by your liberal co-workers into keeping your opinions to yourself is quite another.

Is that what's going on? Yes, say many of the industry's conservatives. That's why secret organizations with such names as "SpeakEasy" and "The Sunday Night Club" spring up every so often. They're not conservative per se, they just let it be known that attendees of their gatherings may freely discuss politics without being chastised for not toeing the liberal line.

"Are you kidding me? Of course it's true," Kelsey Grammer said when asked whether the town is hostile to conservatives. "I wish Hollywood was a two-party town, but it's not."

Grammer said he knows of a makeup trailer that sported a sign warning Republicans to keep out and of U.S. war veterans who keep their backgrounds a secret from their Hollywood co-workers because they hear them belittle the military.

He even said that, earlier in his career, his job was threatened by a prominent sitcom director who demanded he donate money to Barbara Boxer's U.S. Senate campaign. To keep his job, he gave $10,000 to Boxer and the Democrats.

Nowadays, Grammer is a bankable actor who is unafraid to speak his mind. His advice to less established industry players, though, is to shut up about politics -- "unless you think the way you are supposed to think," and that means liberal.

However, there are many who are trying to make Hollywood more accommodating to political diversity. Andrew Breitbart is one. At Breitbart.com, he's launching a "Big Hollywood" blog with 40 industry conservatives tasked with -- among other things -- highlighting liberal intolerance.

"There's an undeniably vicious attitude against those who dissent," Breitbart said. "Hollywood is the most predictable place on the planet, not exclusively because of politics but because of narrow-mindedness."

Breitbart maintains that liberals have pushed conservatives too hard in Hollywood and that Americans have noticed. His intent is "to stop the bullying."

One "Big Hollywood" blogger is Andrew Klavan, an accomplished novelist-screenwriter who made a splash with a Wall Street Journal article comparing Batman and the "The Dark Knight" to President Bush and the war on terror.

"It's not easy being different," he said. "The liberals aren't all that liberal. We think they're wrong, but they think we're evil, and they behave like it."

If you lean right, pitch to those who are sympathetic, or at least tolerant of conservative viewpoints, Klavan said. Mel Gibson, Jerry Bruckheimer and Joel Surnow come to mind.

Klavan also said liberalism seeps into too much Hollywood content nowadays and offers as proof the several anti-Iraq war movies that have been boxoffice bombs.

"These aren't even movies about the war on terror," he said. "They're Vietnam War movies, made by people who sit around at Skybar discussing their pacifist world view."

TV also is too one-sided, he said. "They don't even make fun of Barack Obama," he noted. "How is that possible? The guy's hilarious."

Even liberals acknowledge that they have an easier time than conservatives in Hollywood.

"The person who will get snickered at and picked on is the one wearing the McCain-Palin button," actor Eric Roberts said. "But that's OK. It's America. A free country. If you're going to stick your neck out, it's gonna get whacked."

"You just said liberals discriminate more than conservatives," interrupted his wife, Eliza, an actress and casting director.

But the couple maintain that taking any passionate political position -- right or left -- can be difficult. They recalled when Eric was a guest on "The O'Reilly Factor" and, after returning to the set of the TV show on which he was working, a producer told him: "We're doing a TV show here. We don't need that kind of politicizing. Don't go public with your views."

He noted, though, that the admonition came from a like-minded liberal whose concern was for maintaining high ratings. Nevertheless, the experience had a cautioning effect on Roberts.

"I pick my battles now. If you support Sarah Palin, I'd walk away," he said. "I wouldn't chastise you, I'd feel sorry for you."

Beyond the various "secretive" organizations around town, there is the more obvious Hollywood Congress of Republicans. Headed by actor Mark Vafiades, HCR boasts 160 members who meet about nine times a year to socialize and hear from various right-leaning special guests.

At a recent HCR event, "Saturday Night Live" alumna Victoria Jackson, for example, joked that she's probably the only conservative Christian to have kissed both Sean Penn and Alec Baldwin. Then the comedian-gymnast stood on her head until the room agreed to vote for McCain-Palin, which didn't take long.

Although Obama fundraisers are legion in Hollywood and can draw hundreds of moguls, actors, musicians and pro athletes eager to spend time with the senator, McCain's few appearances have been more understated affairs.

The most recent event, in fact, didn't even draw the candidate or his running mate. Instead, spouses Cindy McCain and Todd Palin headlined while comedian Dennis Miller supplied the entertainment.

McCain and Palin don't spend much time in Hollywood -- even to raise money -- because they figure a Republican can't win California. But the party ignores the entertainment capital at its own peril.

"They didn't only write off California, they wrote off our culture," Breitbart said.

Jesse Jackson Believes Obama Will Not Back Israel

2008-10-15T11:49:00.002-04:00

PREPARE for a new America: That's the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy - saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it."

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

"No, that chapter won't be closed," he says. "However, Obama's victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades."

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."

But is Obama - who's not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black?

Jackson emphatically answers yes: "You don't need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society," he says. "Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain."

Is Jackson worried about the "Bradley effect" - that people may be telling pollsters they favor the black candidate, but won't end up voting for him?

"I don't think this is how things will turn out," he says. "We have a collapsing economy and a war that we have lost in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we face a resurgent Taliban. New threats are looming in Pakistan. Our liberties have been trampled under feet . . . Today, most Americans want change, and know that only Barack can deliver what they want. Young Americans are especially determined to make sure that Obama wins."

He sees a broad public loss of confidence in the nation's institutions: "We have lost confidence in our president, our Congress, our banking system, our Wall Street and our legal system to protect our individual freedoms. . . I don't see how we could regain confidence in all those institutions without a radical change of direction."

Jackson declines to be more concrete about possible policy changes. After all, he insists, he isn't part of Obama's policy team. Yet he clearly hopes that his views, reflecting the position of many Democrats, would be reflected in the policies of an Obama administration.

On the economic front, he hopes for "major changes in our trading policy."

"We cannot continue with the open-door policy," he says. "We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad."

Would that mean an abrogation of the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico?

Jackson dismisses the question as "premature": "We could do a great deal without such dramatic action."

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "an illegal and unjust act." But he's now sure that the United States "will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time."

What of Obama's promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting "realities on the ground."

"We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there," he says. "We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith."

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama's idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. "We've got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want," Jackson says. "Nothing is gained by not talking to others."

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran's uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn't start without preparations.

"Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy," he says. "He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared," he says.

Jackson is especially critical of President Bush's approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

"Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss," Jackson says. "Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."

"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson says. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith."

Amir Taheri's next book, "The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution," is due out next month.

Anti-Semitism

2008-10-10T09:24:00.002-04:00

Dr. Mitchell Langbert recently emailed me regarding a post on his blog. I am posting his blog as I had not heard of this and wanted to dispel the rumor mill.

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-is-not-anti-semitic.html
Sarah Palin, Anti-Semitism and Jewish Prejudice
One of the slanders concerning Sarah Palin is that she is anti-Semitic. The reasoning on which this accusation is based is as follows. She attended a meeting at her church. The speaker, an executive of Jews for Jesus, in remarks not previously vetted by the church or by Palin, said that the Jews' refusal to convert to Christianity causes terrorism. As well, Palin once appeared at an event with Pat Buchanan.

The "Jed Report" makes these claims in a blog entitled "Sarah Palin and the anti-Semitism Question", based on a blog by Ben Smith on Politico.com entitled "Jewish Voters May Be Wary of Sarah Palin" in which Smith accuses Palin of anti-Semitism because she once appeared on a podium with Pat Buchanan and because she once attended a speech at her church. The speech was given by David Brickner and in it Brickner said that terrorist attacks on Israelis were God's "'judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity'".

To accuse someone of anti-Semitism in good faith there ought to be at least a little evidence. Knowing an anti-Semite or appearing with Pat Buchanan is not evidence, in part because many Jews have been associated with anti-Semites and with Pat Buchanan. Likewise, attending a speech billed as a "Jews for Jesus" speech is not anti-Semitic because all Christians believe in Jesus and there is nothing anti-Semitic about welcoming Jews who believe in Jesus either. Moreover, I have heard Jews make similar remarks. For instance, when I was a teenager a Jewish friend had discovered the Jewish religion and he said to me that the holocaust had occurred because the Jews were not sufficiently observant of Judaism. Coincidentally, my friend was killed in a car accident not long after.

It is not surprising that readers of the Bible make statements like this because the Bible is full of such statements. The Jews are criticized throughout the Bible for foresaking the path of righteousness, etc. That does not make the Bible anti-Semitic, just the opposite. Jews should not condemn Christians for using the same kind of logic that the Jews invented.

A friend recently e-mailed me with the argument that Sarah Palin is anti-Semitic as follows:

>"...Palin does go to a church that is wildly antisemitic..."

>"Palin's church supports what I consider, although others may not, the most antisemitic group of them all, Jews For Jesus, who have blamed the problems in Israel on the Jews because they have not accepted Jesus. The church's support of this group is incontrovertible, I leave it to you to decide whether they are an antisemitic group."

>"One of the many terrifying things about Palin is that she is an active member of a church that believes that the world will come to an end in our lifetime. I don't want her near "the button"

>"There are many deep conservatives who I respect, even though I may be in disagreement with 80% of their philosophy. I think there is a big difference between Pat Buchanan and a shrill shill like O'Reilly"

Interestingly, my correspondent likes Pat Buchanan even though Ben Smith and the Jed Report claim that association with Pat Buchanan is evidence of anti-Semitism.

Part of the reason for Jews' concern about anti-Semitism is that there has been alot of it, although few Jews have the knowledge to distinguish between European anti-Semitism and American anti-Semitism, which is much less intense and more the exception than the rule. In contrast, European anti-Semitism is more the rule than the exception.

Jews were expelled from much of western Europe, to include Spain, France and England, from the 13th to the 15th centuries. They were forced to either live in ghettoes as in Venice and Germany, in eastern Europe or the Muslim world. Over the course of the following centuries, eastern Europe, especially Russia and Poland, became intensely anti-Semitic, and much of the anti-Semitism was channeled through the official Russian Orthodox Church. Rape and killing were part of this history, as was official state oppression. Czar Nicholas, for instance, mandated that all Jewish males serve in the army from childhood until age 42. This was meant to be genocidal.

As a result, many eastern European Jews are fearful of Christianity. However, they do not understand that the Protestant Reformation was accompanied by an intensification of interest in and warmth toward Jews. The Cromwellian Revolution was accompanied by England's reopening to Jews. This was also associated with the growth of commerce due to the same historical process. Likewise, at least some of the Puritan thinkers in America were openly Zionist and philo-Semitic. Following the Revolutionary War, Jews were always permitted freedom of religion in the US, with a couple of stark exceptions, such as an edict by General Ulysses S. Grant. Progressivism integrated elements of Populism, which was often anti-urban and anti-Semitic, and was accompanied by a reaffirmation of feudal values that included anti-Semitism. Hence, there was more anti-Semitism beginning in the late nineteenth century through 1950 then there had been previously. However, many Jews, such as Walter Weyl and Walter Lippmann, were prominent in the Progressive movement, and the older, laissez-faire Mugwump movement as well.

When eastern European Jews arrived here between 1880 and 1925 they carried the fear of anti-Semitism with them. This was accompanied by the fact that America, in the throes of Popuulist nativism and Progressivism, was susceptible to various anti-Semitic movements, to include that of Henry Ford and Father Coughlin.

Despite the history of tension that eastern European Jews feel toward Christians, largely because the Russian Orthodox church was virulently anti-Semitic, the Whigs in England and the Calvinist faith to which they adhered, and their American offspring, the Puritans, were often philo-Semitic. Palin's church, Assembly of God, descends from the Puritan heritage. Many of the Puritan religionists of the 18th and 19th century were Zionists.

Christianity is a proselytizing religion that is historically a Jewish sect. The imagery of the New Testament is rooted and imbued with the old. A knowledgeable Christian cannot hate Jews. However, they naturally aim to convert Jews, which is not the same thing.

I would add that Jews need to be aware of their own prejudices. Calling someone anti-Semitic merely because they belong to a Protestant Church in itself may constitute bias. As well, America is very much a Christian country. To understand America a deep understanding of Jonathan Edwards, the Great Awakening, the Church in America and the philosophy of tolerance rooted in the Cromwellian Revolution of 1648 is absolutely essential. Jews should be aware that the tolerance of America is an Anglo-exception to the intolerance of socialist Europe. In contrast to Europe, where Jews were repeatedly murdered and oppressed by feudalistic then socialist and national socialist regimes, America, precisely because of its Protestant basis, has accepted and honored Jews. Jews should be aware of this virtue. I do think that there is much anti-Christian bias among liberal Jews.

My addition in response to and in support of this blog:

The reasoning behind the anti-Semite questions surrounding first Senator Obama and more recently Gov. Palin are not only important to Israel and the Jewish community in America, but for every citizen living in the United States. God clearly states in the Bible, “those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed.” We must accurately assess each candidate’s intentions toward Israel not only for their safety as an ally, but to secure our blessing and protection as a Nation.

In Dr. Langbert’s blog post ‘Sarah Palin, Anti-Semitism and Jewish Prejudice’ he addressed allegations made by others that Gov. Palin may be an anti-semite for attending a church where an alleged anti-semite spoke. She also was accused of attending a function with Pat Buchanan, whom many affiliate with anti-semitism. The first allegation is in regards to a group ‘Jews for Jesus’ that were not vetted and spoke at her church. She was in attendance. I have looked into this group and from what I saw on their website they are not anti-semitic and in fact appear to be the opposite. For those wanting to research here is their link: http://www.jews-for-jesus.org/. They observe all the Jewish holidays and yet believe that Jesus is their Lord. They invite both Jesus believing Jewish people (I believe that is Messianic Jew) and non-believing Jewish people. It appears they are evangelizing to the Jewish community. If they were anti-Semites, they would not care about saving the Jewish community and leading them to the Lord. While many in the Jewish community may be offended by this, that is the very nature of Christianity. To share Jesus with others who do not believe in him. In a statement by David Brickner clarifying the incident:

I want to thank those of you who have commented either here or in e-mails in response to the media furor over my remarks at Wasilla Bible Church on August 17th. The comments attributed to me were taken out of context. The notion that the terrorist, bulldozer attack in Jerusalem this summer was God’s judgment on Israel for not believing in Jesus, is absolutely not what I believe. In retrospect, I can see how my rhetoric might be misunderstood and I truly regret that.

Of course I never expected the kind of magnifying glass scrutiny on a message where I was speaking extemporaneously. Let me be clear. I don’t believe that any one event whether a terrorist attack or a natural disaster is a specific fulfillment of or manifestation of a Biblical prediction of judgment. I don’t believe that the newspaper should be used to interpret the Bible. The Bible interprets the Bible.

I love my Jewish people and the land of Israel. I stand with and support her against all efforts to harm her or her people in any way. Please feel free to read my further explanations, in my Realtime article and in the interviews I did with Christianity Today and NBC.

Sincerely,
David Brickner

Another attack against Gov. Palin is she “once” appeared at an even with Pat Buchanan. I found Gov. Palin’s explanation of this “incident”, it was reported: Palin wrote a letter to her local newspaper making clear that her appearance at the Buchanan event wasn’t an endorsement of his candidacy. Published July 26, 1999, the letter said:

“As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I’ll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect……” (www.politicofact.com)

In an arab news article (arabnews.com) in regards to Gov. Palin meeting with Israeli officials it was also noted: “Palin displays an Israeli flag in her office window despite the tiny Jewish population in her state.”

Sounds like the media was making a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to cast doubts on Gov. Palin’s sincerity when it comes to her support for Israel and the Jewish community. It is one thing to have one incident of a suspected association that turns out to be false. It becomes an issue when a Presidential candidate sits in the pew of a church for 20 years listening to a Pastor’s diatribe about his dislike not only for Jews and Israel, but also for his own Country.

There is a very large and very successful attempt in America and in Israel to repair relations between Christians and the Jewish Community. Many organizations have been established to rekindle a relationship that was damaged shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus when the Romans convinced Christians that the Jews were the ones who killed Him (when in fact it was the Roman Empire). This led to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, a Holocaust in which most Christians turned their backs on their Jewish brothers and sisters.

Now the Christian community has opened their eyes to the Jewish community and realizes they are an ally, and not an enemy. The distrust in the eyes of the Jewish community is substantiated given the track record of people who are supposed to believe in a loving Jesus. But while this attempt has seen the fruits of its labor under such organizations as Christians United for Israel and other organizations, there is an attempt to undermine the process.

Progressives and anti-Semitic groups in America (mainly the pseudo-intellectual community) and abroad will do anything and everything to undermine the process or anyone supporting the process. They view a united Christian/Jewish coalition as very dangerous to their efforts to annihilate Israel. It is their tactic and attempt to pit those working in this relational effort against one another (a tactic many times used by Satan himself). I assure you we will continue to see this type of reckless behavior from the liberal media, other countries and anyone opposing Israel’s right to exist as a Nation.

In a comment in response to Dr. Langbert’s defense of Gov. Palin someone stated:

Protestant Church? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This church is an Apocolyptic bunch of whacked end-timers, they speak in tongues and do demonic exorcisms! They are Creationists who deny absolutely every shred of science. You talk like these guys are Methodists. They are outside mainstream Christianity as Scientologists! You either have absolutely no knowledge of Protestantism or you will defend Republicans no matter how ridiculous the argument is.

It is interesting to note that a person who thinks the Christian community is crazy because we don’t support evidence-based scientific theories (emphasis on theory) and yet has dismissed the scientific backings of intelligent design/Creationism findings is truly ignorance. There is much data and research archaeologically, geologically, biologically etc. to back up intelligent design/creationism. People who think we are ignorant for believing a different set of scientific data and research just as concrete if not more so than evolution which is also backed up by a very large book that has been more accurate then any Darwinist ideal are by their very nature deceived. Or maybe just demon possessed and in need of exorcism.

If this person thinks we are a bunch of apocalyptic wackos well, I guess he/she will just have to wait for the apocalypse to see who is right. And he better be right that we are a bunch of wackos because the alternative will not be to his/her advantage.

For those wackos looking for the science to back up intelligent design:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm

Expelled No Intelligence Allowed

2008-10-07T09:30:00.004-04:00

I have not seen this movie yet but I really want to. It is out on video now. Ben Stein did a documentary on the school system and the liberal infiltration of socialistic and other liberal minded philosophies in our classrooms. Anyone disagreeing with this philosophy are many time reprimanded, silenced, lose their tenure or are removed from the classroom. This seem to be very informative as to what is happening in our academia.

Below is a clip of Ben Stein's new movie challenging this philosophy:

Anonymous Response

2008-10-06T07:51:00.004-04:00

The recent topic of this post was a not so desirable video of Joe Biden. However, I sought the wise counsel of a Christian friend who advised me that against this. Given the context of the Bible she referenced, I agree and so have refrained from further showing this video. I decided that being in the counsel of the righteous is far more beneficial. So I have deleted that video of Joe Biden. But I will once again pose this question to "anonymous". Since there was no response to my previous posts regarding abortion and mainstream feminists who actually agreed it was murder and yet thought a woman's right was more important than that of a human life...I will once again pose this the same question:

My second child Mary was born at 38 weeks, subsequently with a clot in her cord 3 days before a schedule c-section. She was just as developed as and considered a full term baby yet (more developed than my 3rd child born at 37 weeks whom spent a week in the RNICU), we were given a "fetal demise" certificate instead of a "death certificate" do you feel she was just a fetus and not worthy of status as a baby, a human, with full human rights and only deserved a "fetal demise" certificate (also subject to a partial birth abortion if unwanted) or do you believe she was at this point a human life? Since anonymous always has a response I sequester you to answer.

Vice Presidential Debate

2008-10-03T11:36:00.002-04:00

I have been listening to commentators and pundits this morning discuss the debate from last night. So, I figured I would throw my 2 cents into the political ring. I actually enjoyed the Vice Presidential debate. I do have to admit after the two previous interviews Sarah Palin, I was quite nervous for her. I do know those interviews were screened and filtered through liberal media. For instance, Katie Couric had a two-hour interview with Sarah Palin and they showed the 10 minute segment that made her look inept. And Joe Biden, well lets just say I was glued to the television to see if Governor Palin could provoke one his famous meltdown/tempter tantrums. But it was not meant to be on either side of the aisle and I do feel the debate was a tie.

Joe Biden I thought was surprisingly likeable. He does have the experience (although I think the wrong experience), but he did make a couple valid points I agreed with. One of the most significant issues that I did agree with him was discussing Iraq. Side note: I have military family members, not sure if they read this but maybe can clarify the following comment. Senator Biden spoke of the Iraqi’s taking over their own Country and needing to stand on their feet. Yes, this is a known goal on both sides of the aisle. But what he said was, and I am paraphrasing, “We are spending billions a month on this war. We are going into debt because of it. And the Iraqi’s currently have an $80 billion surplus. They need to mobilize their 400,000 troops and stand on their own feet”. This statement agitated me, not because it was Senator Biden speaking, but because if that statement is accurate, I agree. Knowing that Iraq is in the plus and we are financially collapsing does not sit well with me. I know we started the war and need to finish the job. But that statement was a hard pill to swallow. Unless there is another factor in this equation that I have not heard, the Iraqi’s need to start financially participating in this war.

Biden came across as nice, and almost affectionate for Governor Palin. He smiled often even though I think it was to cover up his irritation (he is known to be a hothead). But he managed to keep his composure and not resort to “Biden style” attacks and temper tantrums. Overall, I think Senator Biden was articulate, composed and friendly.

Sarah Palin. I was very happy with her debating acumen. She did not back down, she didn’t get flustered. Governor Palin connected with the middle class more so than Biden. She appeared confident and didn’t let Senator Biden get away with half-truths or missteps. She called him out on those issues that needed to be addressed, yet she was always very respectful to him and even in agreement a couple of times. She seemed to be very knowledge in foreign relations and really hammered Sen. Obama on this issue. She has much knowledge and experience with energy issues which is very important. I personally would like to stop sending money for oil to terrorists who would like to kill me. So overall I think Sarah Palin made a nice comeback last night and held her own in this debate.

The larger point I believe that was missed by most of the commentators was the civility, affection (or appearance of affection), and positive tone of the debate. That is something that has been seriously lacking within both campaigns (and consequently filtering into the American public debates.) I havebecome disgusted with both side’s tactics and mudslinging. Even though Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin did not agree often they were cordial to each other and even got a few chuckles off what the other person said. I would like to see this type of behavior filter down into the Presidential campaigns for the remainder of the race. However, since that apparently is wishful thinking I will just pray for tivo, cross my fingers and plug my ears until Election Day.

One additional note. Joe Biden did in fact support McCain for President!

Abortion

2008-09-25T16:11:00.001-04:00

Warning: Content may be discomforting.

This is another article from lifesitenews.com.

Priests for Life Forces Members of Congress to Face Carnage of Abortion

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 24, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Fr. Frank Pavone led a team of pro-life advocates to Capitol Hill last week for a three-day educational demonstration directed at pro-choice members of Congress, which set out to reveal the gruesome reality of abortion.

The campaign did not seek to address abortion as a moral issue, but simply explained via medical diagrams and abortionist quotations the true nature of the abortion procedure, which is often ignored by abortion advocates. At a press conference Fr. Pavone said, "In these weeks before our national elections, we are asking all of those who believe abortion should be legal to answer a simple question. We present you with the words of the abortionists themselves and then ask, 'When you say abortion, is this what you mean?'

"We urge our fellow citizens to face the reality of what abortion is: an act of violence that kills a child."

On the Priests for Life website, Fr. Pavone explained that the campaign, to some extent, is bound to succeed:

"When the abortion supporter is presented with the abortionist's quotes and asked, 'Is this what you mean?' the goal of the project has already been accomplished, namely, that the abortion supporter - and others who are listening - have heard a description of abortion that they have never heard before. They have heard graphic detail that cuts through the rhetoric and restores meaning to the word 'abortion.'"

Fr. Pavone was joined in his march through Capitol Hill offices by other pro-life activists, including Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino, who walked his congressional audience step-by-step through the horrifying procedure of a typical abortion. The following is an excerpt from Dr. Levatino's description of the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure from the Priests for Life website, where he asks his audience to envision themselves in the place of an abortionist.

"Once you have grasped something inside [the uterus], squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard - really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 4 to 5 inches long. ... Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.

"The head of a baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. ... You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a pure white gelatinous material issue from the cervix. That was the baby's brains. You can then extract the skull pieces.

"If you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you."

Dr. Levatino, while still practicing as an obstetrician-gynecologist, told CNSNews.com that he ended his career as an abortionist after personal tragedy struck.

"My wife and I had an infertility problem," Levatino said. "We were unable to have children, and after several years of effort, we were very, very fortunate in being able to adopt a little girl whom we named Heather. As sometimes happens, after years of effort -- and I mean three surgeries on my wife's part and everything else -- we finally adopted a child, and my wife got pregnant the very next month. We ended up with two children just 10 months apart. We were very blessed that way.

"On June 23, 1984, my son was trying to cross the street, and my daughter, who was always the little mother, was running after him to tell him not to do that, and she was struck and killed by a car.

"If you haven't gone through that kind of tragedy, you don't have a clue. You may think you can imagine it, but trust me: You have no idea what it's like to lose a child, in any way.

"What do you do after a tragedy? You mourn for a while and you try to get back into your routine. I don't know how long after her death I had to do my first D&E abortion. I remember reaching in and literally ripping out an arm or a leg and looking at it in the clamp and I got sick. When you start an abortion you can't stop. If you leave anything behind, you [can] bet your patient is going to come back infected, bleeding or worse.

"I soldiered on and I finished that abortion."

But, Levatino said, something had changed.

"For the first time in my life I really looked at that pile of goo at the side of the table, and all of a sudden I didn't see her wonderful right to choose, and I didn't see the $600 wad of cash that I made in 15 minutes, and I couldn't think about what a great doctor I was because I took care of her problem. All I could see was somebody's son or daughter."

Dr. Levatino is now a medical advisor for Priests for Life.

For further information on the Priest for Life initiative, visit http://www.priestsforlife.org.

Prominent Feminist Admits "Abortion is Murder"

2008-09-18T16:18:00.001-04:00

This is an article from Life Site News. Thought I would share.

Shock: Prominent Feminist Admits "Abortion is Murder" but "I Am a Firm Supporter"

By Tim Waggoner

WASHINGTON, September 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an article focusing on newly appointed vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, prominent feminist Camille Paglia admits that, much like Gov. Palin, she also believes abortion involves the murder of an innocent life - but unlike Palin, Paglia says she is a "firm supporter" of abortion.

Paglia's piece, which appears on Salon.com, is the latest indication that "utilitarian" philosophies that no longer recognize the "right to life" as being the most foundational human right are gaining ground in some liberal circles. Under these philosophies even murder can be advocated as long as it protects what is deemed to be an even more important "right" - in Paglia's case the sacrosanct "right to abortion."

Paglia, the University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, is well-known for her non-conformist approach as a lesbian social critic and as a popular journalist and author. Her latest article, "Fresh blood for the vampire", largely addresses the Republican's surge in the polls after choosing Palin as VP-nominee, but also touches on abortion.

"Let's take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body," said Paglia, voicing the commonest argument put forward by feminist supporters of abortion.

Unlike her fellow pro-abortion colleagues, however, Paglia continued on to - as she termed it - "face the ethical consequences" of embracing abortion. "I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful," she said.

Paglia then admitted that in order to rationalize and accept abortion, one would have to not only accept, but logically condone other atrocities against life - that is, one would have to accept murder for the sake of protecting a particular, more important "right", as she does. The author criticizes those on the social left who parrot the scientifically untenable position that the fetus is just a "lump of tissue", saying that those who do so are simply afraid to face the consequences of their pro-abortion position.

"Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue," explained Paglia. "The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences."

Paglia also criticized some on the social left for their logical inconsistency in condoning the killing of the innocent, but not of the guilty. "I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?" she said.

"What I am getting at here is that not until the Democratic Party stringently reexamines its own implicit assumptions and rhetorical formulas will it be able to deal effectively with the enduring and now escalating challenge from the pro-life right wing."

Paglia's professed willingness to sanction murder in order to protect a woman's "right to choose" is comparable to the argument put forward in a recent article published in the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The authors of the article, writing on the notion of "brain death" and organ donation, note that the frequently used criteria of death known as "brain death" is inadequate for determining if a potential organ donor has truly died. However, instead of calling into question the idea of vital organ donation, the authors of the piece instead suggest that the criteria for dead donors should be eradicated altogether - thus sanctioning killing a potential organ donor in order to harvest his/her organs.

Likewise, at the beginning of 2008, in a lengthy report that appeared in The Hastings Center Report - called by conservative bioethicist Wesley Smith the "world's most prestigious" journal of bioethics - the authors advocate infanticide for those new born babies who may face a life of what medical personnel deem to be "unbearable" suffering. Under what is known as the Groningen Protocol, infanticide is already taking place on a regular basis in the Netherlands with government support.

A Real Trailblazer

2008-09-08T20:04:00.003-04:00

There is a woman not too many people were aware of until she rose from obscurity to one of the most powerful positions that was always held by men in what was viewed as a patriarchal society. She was a wife and mother, she worked, and given the status of the society she most likely ran the home. She was a superwoman. When God spoke she listened. With no foreign relations experience (or none on record), she told an army of men to overtake an evil oppressor that was threatening their Country. The leader of the army refused because he was frightened. He would only go if she went with him. He wasn’t following the Words of God so God sent her because she would listen. It wasn't about experience to God it was about faithfulness. The position she previously held had no military description within the purview of her job. So with her strength, determination and faith, she chose to rise to the head of the army of men and delivered the evil oppressors into the hands of a women. No this is not Sarah Palin but Deborah the Judge from the Bible. One of the only good women in the Bible to rise to a position of power always held by a man. And just a side note, that supposed strong leader that feared going against these evil oppressors, his name was Barak.

So, if Deborah, thousands of years ago could be a wife, mother, Judge, go to war with no foreign relations experience and win in a society where women were subservient to men, why can’t Sarah in America? She definitely has the same resume. She’s a wife, mother, holds a prominent position within the good ol’ boy network, serves God and stands strong. I believe Sarah has a Deborah anointing.

So for all you feminists that have turned your backs on Sarah, you can keep your Jezebel the ruthless ruler who was fed to the dogs, your deceitful Delilah who sold-out to those in power, we have our Deborah. Good luck and God bless Sara Palin.

True Grit – Sarah Palin Vice Presidential Hopeful

2008-08-29T15:30:00.000-04:00

Dumbfounded, surprised, energized, jaw-dropping, but a few words to describe my emotions today when it was announced that Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) has been picked as Vice President nominee on the Republican ticket.

Since the inception of this Presidential Campaign, I watched in amazement as Senator Barack Obama rose to the occasion beating out a formidable female opponent for the Democrat nominee for President. I was happy but subdued because I would not be voting for him. If only he would have been conservative. I would love for this Country to finally overcome its prejudices and racial issues so we can move on to solving some of the other sources of contention in this society. But it seemed as if I was going to have continue to vote for the lackluster, stuffy white man party that holds the same values I do.

Then it happened, out of nowhere, a woman after my own heart. I awoke this morning to find that potentially a woman would be on the ticket. I must admit, I had heard of her but had not researched her background in-depth because it seemed hopeless the Republican Party would actually make an out-of-the-box, intelligent choice that would reposition the Republican Party. I will gladly admit that I was surprisingly wrong. So I quickly researched her stats and what I found was a diamond in the ruff. The more I read the more excited I became. Here is her background:

Governor Palin of Alaska is a mother of five – wow! She recently gave birth to a son that has Down syndrome. She knew of this before giving birth and chose life for her baby. She is pro-life. She ratted out the Alaskan Republican Party (of which she is a member) for ethics violations. She challenged the Republican incumbent for Governor and won. Then winning in the general election over a previous Democrat Governor. She used to hunt for moose with her father before school, she fishes, plays hockey and is a gun toting member of the NRA. Oh, and before you are picturing a tom-boy, she also took second place in the Ms. Alaska pageant.

According to Wikipedia she is a reformer of grand proportions:

Highlights of Governor Palin's tenure include a successful push for an ethics bill, and also shelving pork-barrel projects supported by fellow Republicans. After federal funding for the Gravina Island Bridge project that had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending was lost, Palin decided against filling the over $200 million gap with state money.^[14][15] "Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on 'federal dollars,' as the state does today."^[16]

She has challenged the state's Republican leaders, helping to launch a campaign by Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell to unseat U.S. Congressman Don Young^[17] and publicly challenging Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings.^[14]

In 2007, Palin had an approval rating often above 90%.^[16] A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%.^[18]

I can truly say, for the first time in this campaign, I will proudly vote for McCain.

This reminds me of a poem I have had on a plaque since I was a little girl and really never gave it much attention until my daughter came along (and this poem is proudly hanging in her room now). It is called ‘An If For Girls’ by Elizabeth Lincoln Otis:

If you can dress to make yourself attractive,
Yet not make puffs and curls your chief delight;
If you can swim and row, be strong and active,
But of the gentler graces lose not sight;
If you can dance without a craze for dancing,
Play without giving play too strong a hold,
Enjoy the love of friends without romancing,
Care for the weak, the friendless and the old;

If you can master French and Greek and Latin,
And not acquire as well, a priggish mien;
If you can feel the touch of silk and satin
Without despising calico and jean;
If you can ply a saw and use a hammer,
Can do a man's work when the need occurs,
Can sing, when asked, without excuse or stammer,
Can rise above unfriendly snubs and slurs;

If you can make good bread as well as fudges,
Can sew with skill, and have an eye for dust;
If you can be a friend and hold no grudges,
A girl whom all will love because they must;

If sometime you should meet and love another
And make a home with faith and peace enshrined
And you its soul -- a loyal wife and mother --
You'll work out pretty nearly to my mind
The plan that's been developed through the ages,
And win the best that life can have in store.
You'll be, my girl, a model for the sages --
A woman whom the world will bow before.

Although I am sure the media will attempt to dig up as much dirt on her as possible, I do admire this woman’s grit and determination. Congratulations to Governor Sarah Palin.

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle

2008-08-16T12:30:00.002-04:00

I figured since school is starting and I know a few people have recently started reading the blog I would re-post older posts regarding the education system in America. So here you go:

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Rules The World

I fully believe this philosophy and so does the government. I am sure many reading this blog think I am anti-government. Well, I am for the most part. Yes, we need a government for basics such as emergency services and care for those who are disabled or elderly. We need government so there is not complete anarchy. But the role of government has been far over-reaching than our Founding Fathers ever intended. We will go more into that on a later blog.

Early education is the hot topic these days around the liberal roundtable. They are not just talking about forcing kids into school by the time they are four or five, but now are looking at 0-3 education. Their mantra is that babies start learning from day one. In a piece of literature on early education it states, “What we have learned leads us to conclude that America’s continuing efforts to improve education and develop a world-class workforce will be hampered without a federal and state commitment to early education for 3-and 4-year-old children.” In another piece of Literature, ‘Ensuring Early Childhood Literacy Task Force Report’ one of the policies the State Board of Education in Michigan is looking into is, “Direct the Superintendent of Public Instruction to meet with various agency directors to identify actions to increase early childhood parent information efforts during pre-natal (emphasis mine), immunization and pediatrician visits.

In Allegan County ISD literature they state, “We must stop thinking of zero to five (preschool years) and K-12 (the school years) as two separate entities. They are, in fact, two facets of the same thing.” We have a school system that is planning and plotting to implement school at infancy. These are not my words. I have read much information on this topic. They are promoting and using such key words as ‘parents as children’s first teachers’. This sounds like a disassociation of parents in their children’s lives. They reduce us to being “a part of the village.”

There is far more information on this issue but these are some of the basic ideologies coming from the liberal agenda. The first years of a babies development should be spent being loved, nurtured and learning basic socialization skills. Babies, infants and toddlers need this time to develop a sense of security in the world around them before attending a state run or state sponsored program.

While they claim it will be optional (the state), this is always a slippery slope of easing the public into something that will eventually be mandated. Ask any daycare provider (if they have not yet been driven out of business in Michigan). Michigan has implemented so many new punitive rules to daycare facilities that many have already had to shut down. In a hearing in the committee I assisted, several daycare providers, including one that was a million dollar business and had received numerous recognitions and awards nationally said that if she had to implement the new rules she would have to shut down her daycare facility.

Why would the government do this to an economy that is already suffering? Because once the daycares are shut down there will be nowhere to go except the state-run school system.

The government would love for this to be the case for reasons that they will never admit. More money (this will be an extension of the k-12 system) and given the impressionability of young minds, they will be able to further indoctrinate our children into ‘mother government’ beliefs. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

Summers Almost Over

2008-08-14T17:11:00.002-04:00

I am sure I have lost the attention of the few people that read this blog but summer is almost over and I will return to blogging. I am thinking Since I am drowning in Campaign news everywhere I will wait until October for that topic. Any suggestions for topics? I am thinking about catching people up on some of the historical background as to the conflict in places like the middle east (Israel/Iran) and Russia. Let me know if you have any suggestions or requests. Although by now I am not sure if anyone is even reading this anymore since I disappeared for awhile.

Time for Some Campaigning

2008-07-17T07:26:00.003-04:00

With it being summer I will not be posting as often. But I will every two-three weeks have something up. I will return to regular postings in the fall. Until then here is a cute little video for you to watch.

http://sendables.jibjab.com/

Click on this link then hit play. It is hilarious.

Ban on Pharmaceutical Companies in Michigan

2008-06-15T16:42:00.003-04:00

Michigan is the first and only state in the nation to have this law. This law was enacted in 1995 under the Republican Administration. This legislation in my opinion, is an injustice to our citizen's and their right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The current law protects the pharmaceutical industry from lawsuits when a person has died or been seriously injured from using their drugs. Even if the drug has been recalled for adverse health effects on a large scale; in 49 other states citizen's have the right to sue over such gross negligence. This is not currently the case in Michigan.

I am not supporting frivolous lawsuits that will cost taxpayer's and corporations money. I do not believe people should sue every time they have an accidental minor injury on public or private property. If someone has a freak unintended reaction to a commonly and widely accepted drug, they should not frivolously sue the drug manufacturer. However, if a pharmaceutical company develops and distributes a drug that leads to many deaths and/or severe illness, I believe they were negligent at best. I will also go one step further and include the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), after all, they are the last line of defense in determining if a food or drug is safe for public consumption.

The rationale behind this legislation was that of curbing frivolous lawsuits that would potentially cost the companies' millions of dollars thus hurting the consumer with an increase in the price of other drugs and potentially hurting Michigan's job market (there are quite a few pharmaceutical companies in Michigan). They also wanted to stop the ambulance chasing attorneys from profiting off of frivolous lawsuits. However, when we look into the track record of the companies recalled drugs and the ineptitude of the FDA, this law as it stands is unacceptable. Maybe if the drug companies took more time to research and study the drugs and cared more for the people they are supposedly helping instead of their bottomline, legislation would not be required and the only lawsuits would be frivolous in nature (which a competent judge would determine).

Representative Mike Simpson (D) introduced House Bill 4044 to repeal the current ban on lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies in Michigan. While I have not had a chance to read through the bill and give it my full support, I do support the intent of this legislation. There have also been several amendments offered to cap attorney's contingency fees in personal or wrongful death suits (an attempt to curb ambulance chasers if this legislation is enacted). Other amendments included were monetary penalties against attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits. All amendments have failed in the House.

While the original intent of the current ban was to curb frivolous lawsuits and to keep and create jobs in Michigan, it leaves Michigan's citizens questioning a parties commitment to care for our overall wellbeing. While you cannot put a price tag on life and health, people who were directly affected by a companies and governments negligence should be compensated for that injury or death.

Feel free to comment whether in support or opposition of this ban. I am open to all views.

Coming Attractions

2008-06-10T08:37:00.003-04:00

I know my blog has not been consistent lately with postings. Sorry, I have had a change in routine and have not had as much time to blog. I will have another posting up in the next day or two so don't go anywhere. The next topic will discuss Michigan's law banning citizen's from suing pharmaceutical companies for drugs that have harmed them.

The Great Patriarch

2008-05-31T14:51:00.004-04:00

I try not to blog about personal issues in my life because this blog is geared toward the political landscape of our State and Nation. However, since it is my blog I will make an exception. I have to honor one of the greatest men I was fortunate to have in my life, my grandad. Monday is the one year anniversary of the day he went home to his own golf course with a river running through it in heaven (I doubt he has even been to his house yet).

Just a few words to describe my grandad, the Chief: wisdom, perserverance, humbleness, steadfast, tough, kind, respectful. I am so greatful for all the time I was able to spend with him before he passed away. My favorite moment was the night before an operation (we didn't think he would pull through) so I visited him at night after everyone had left. He was not a big talker. He mostly listened intently and showed genuine interest in everything we had to say (no matter how long winded). Then he would impart his wisdom on the situation and that was it. Anyway, he imparted about 2 hours worth of wisdom on me (he was not even supposed to be talking because his lungs were barely functioning) . I think he wanted to give me all the "talks" I needed for the rest of my life to help navigate me through things that had not even happened in my life yet. It was a great experience. My family is ridiculously large so to be able to have time alone was great.

Here is a little history of his life before he died. He had just about every ailment and disease you could think of (except cancer) at this point and functioned through all of it with one kidney. He was a modern marvel of medicine. When he was 55 he had a massive heart attack that should have taken his life and then was only guaranteed about five to ten years to live. In typical grandad fashion he lasted until the ripe old age of 87. After his operation he was terminal and given no more than six months but most likely less than two. But my grandad had one more lesson to teach us on perserverance and lasted almost eight months. From the time he "went downhill" until the day of his passing he fought tooth and nail every step of the way. He was always a great fighter.

His legacy is not just the large family he left behind (I believe we are over 55 strong now), but his "live by example" approach to life instead of "do what I say and not as I do". Although Jesus is the standard to live by here on earth if there is an earthly person that I would like to live up to it would be my grandad. I have found myself in many situations and think "what would my grandad do in this situation?"

He never made excuses. He always rolled up his sleeves and worked until he got the job done the right way, no matter how hard or agonizing the task. He was quick to listen and slow to speak. He was humble when it came to himself and proud when it came to his family. He was like the old wise Chief and when he spoke everyone else immediately fell silent and listened. He showed men how to love their wives and children to respect their mothers. He taught us to laugh often. He taught us that if we go into the woods, the only thing that you better leave behind are your footprints. He had the wisdom of Solomon and the respect of probably every man that ever knew him. Not because he demanded it but because he earned it. He was a poet and a writer. He wasn't afraid to show love or cry. He also was not afraid to fight. He perservered through every life obstacle that came his way. He never ever gave up. And at his funeral it was evident he had left a good impression because people came from all over the United States just to pay their respects.

Thank you Grandad for everything you taught this family. I hope to be able to pass your legacy on to my children. I love you and will see you again someday.

Guess What These Ingredients Are Used For?

2008-05-27T14:45:00.002-04:00

What are the following ingredients used for? Phenol (poison), Formaldehyde (embalming fluid and cancerous), Alum, Acetone, Aluminum Phosphate, Glycerin (toxic to kidneys, liver, lungs, gastrointestinal etc.), Fecal Matter, Horse serum, Urine, chicken embryo, aborted baby lung tissue, RNA and DNA from animals and human cell tissue cultures and until recently Thimerosol. Do you think these ingredients are for the most recent biological warfare weapon? How about the newest interrogation technique to replace water-boarding? Wrong. These are all the ingredients you can find in your children’s vaccinations. No, I am not joking. I am not a doctor and the views expressed on this blog are solely my opinion. In this particular blog I will give a lot of information and my own opinions but please base your decisions on your own further research.

Dr. Mendelsohn, a renowned Pediatrician for thirty years has stated, “The greatest threat of childhood disease lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunizations.” While many people scoff at this notion and would never believe that their government would approve drugs that would hurt our children, look at the recent discussions on autism. Look at all the drugs recently pulled off the market because they were killing people or causing life-debilitating circumstances. In the past several months I have listened to several mainstream radio and talk shows that have addressed the epidemic of autism and the link to immunizations. Many doctor’s response to this claim is, “there are no studies that show a link between autism and vaccinations in infants.” This was the same answer I received from my doctor when discussing immunizations for my daughter. Then I asked her this question. “I understand that, but are there studies that disprove this theory?” She said no. So basically there are no studies that prove one way or the other. However, here are some interesting facts regarding vaccinations. The facts I am going to share are referenced from ‘Vaccines: Are they safe and effective?’ by Mary Tocco, Director of Vaccine Research, Michigan Opposing Mandatory Vaccines.

Congressional Hearings 1999-2003 held by Congressman Dan Burton, Chair of the House Government Reform Committee in Washington, found that in the 1980’s the pharmaceutical companies had removed thimerosol from dog vaccinations because of their potential severe damage and that fifty vaccines being used on humans had this same component and asked that they recall them. Here are a few interesting facts about the FDA (Federal Drug Administration), CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the Advisory committee that approve these vaccinations:

Advisory committee members own patents for vaccines under consideration (I do not know how old this information is, but it was accurate at one time)
The CDC gives conflict-of-interest waivers to every member of the advisory committee.
The committee chair at the time this information was published, Dr. John Moldin, owns stock in Merck.
The committee has no public members.
A member of the CDC advisory committee, Dr. Paul Offit disclosed that he received 350k in grant money from Merck to develop the rotavirus vaccine; he also shares this patent, and it was pulled after six months because of problems.
Dr. Harry Greenburg, Chair of the FDA at one time, owns 120,000 stocks in Aviron, a vaccine manufacturer.

Are you still competent in your government to keep you safe? If so, here are some other worrisome facts to consider (from the same source).

In 1992, by the time a baby was six months old it would have received 187.5 mcg of a very lethal toxic metal from vaccinations. In 1950 this total was 50 mcg. EPA safety levels for daily exposure for infants up to two years of age is .01 to 4 mcg. I do not know what the levels are in 2008 but since more vaccinations have been required I can imagine this level has increased.

Japan banned the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccination in 1993 after 1.8 million children were given two types of the vaccination and record number of these children developed non-viral meningitis and other adverse reactions were recorded.

Internationally recognized, Director of the Autism Research Institute and Founder of Autism Society of America, Dr. Benard Rimland was quoted at a scientific press release, “The vaccine manufacturers, the CDC, the FDA, and the various medical associations have failed miserably in their duty to protect our children. Rather than acknowledge their role in creating the immense, catastrophic rise in autism, these organizations have resorted to denial and obstruction. They stand to lose their credibility, and billions of dollars in liability lawsuits that will soon reach the courts.”

There is much more information on immunizations that could be shared but then this would be a book and not a blog. For more information on vaccinations and their to diseases go to: http://www.momvaccines.org/html/literature.html

If you do not agree with this information or find anything I have included in this information to not be accurate feel free to inform us! Thank you.

Two Parties Collide

2008-05-20T13:46:00.001-04:00

I love talk radio. I know, it sounds nerdy. But I love to keep myself informed about what is happening in our Country and our State. I often listen to The Big Show with Michael Patrick Sheals on 1240 am. His frequent guests include Saul Anuzis, Chair of the Michigan Republican Party and Mark Brewer, Chair of the Michigan Democrat Party. One thing that is prevalent in their conversations on air is how much these two men appear to hate each other and their ability to spread their hate-filled cancer to the citizens of our State. Sometimes I wonder if I am listening to two men debate politics and policy or two children fight over a friend in romper room. I get it, this is an election year and each party is fighting for our vote. However, these people, these supposed leaders in our State are not capable of debating and disagreeing on issues; instead they appear to be trying to win the “yo mama” rip fest.

I am especially disappointed in the Republican Party, which I tend to align my beliefs with most of the time. The moral majority, the conservative party, the party that has a very large conservative Christian base. When I worked for this party in the Legislature I was appalled by leaderships behavior in many instances. There were tactics used to undermine the other party (they do this on both sides of the aisle), they were extremely mean spirited and arrogant. When a group of individuals tout their party as the moral majority are they not supposed to preach the most important moral imperative of them all? If you need me to answer this question you are not a part of the true moral majority. The answer is love. I have heard many of the men and women in leadership talk of their Christian beliefs and the need for their values to be espoused in government. But they must have not read the part in the Bible that says, “above all else, love one another”. This does not mean that a person cannot disagree, debate and try to run their agenda in Michigan. But it does mean when you are debating the issues, don’t get personal, don’t make snide remarks or digs or cheap shots. It means debate the issue, get your point across, then shake hands and God forbid, go to lunch together.

The two parties coupled with the media have done more damage to this State then any other entity or person. Are grown men and women capable of steering an agenda that upholds their beliefs and ideals without slamming people with differing views? Are both sides of the aisle capable of addressing an issue, stating their views and reasoning for supporting or opposing the issue and voting on it without hostility and mean-spirit rhetoric in between?

The bottom line is we teach our children to play fair and to respect other kids who are different from us regardless of our views. So why don’t they practice what they preach? Lay down your hate, love one another regardless of your views, and may the best man (or woman) or party win.

American Patriotism is Alive and Well!

2008-05-14T12:23:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, I picked my son up from school early. I decided to take him on a field trip that no school would ever think of; I wanted to teach him something that a textbook in a classroom will not teach him anymore. This was something I felt my son had to experience to receive the full affect…. American Patriotism.

Our cousin SGM David Marshall returned with his unit from Afghanistan. The welcoming home of our heroes was one of the best experiences I can give my child at such an early age. There were many tears, screams, claps, and emotion as the unit walked through their red, white and blue decorated door to the song, ‘The Boys are Back in Town’ (at least I think that is the actual title, but you get the drift). There were flags waving, signs held high and confetti poppers. I felt like it was the fourth of July. I can’t even imagine what that must have felt like for those men returning from a mission they didn’t know that they would necessarily make it back from. All of the support for our military men and women was very overwhelming.

In a Country where national media outlets will only give death tolls and honor fallen soldiers (only to exploit their own anti-war agenda), this welcoming home ceremony is a good lesson and eye opener for those who oppose the war and are ashamed of our Country. I wanted to teach my son that there are good men out their fighting for his freedom. That there are men who are brave and will stand up and do the job. I want to teach my child there are others out there like us who love this Country, are proud of this Country and will die for it. There are heroes who actually return from war alive and are honored. Not for their service to the global community, but for our Country, our freedom, and our democracy. My son learned that lesson yesterday. He was and is so very proud to be the little cousin of a U.S. soldier.

As my husband and I sat in our living room watching the local news channels to catch a glimpse of the field trip, we were very disappointed. Yes, the camera crews were there, yes soldiers (including my cousin) were interviewed and yes that segment was included in the news. However, from the very beginning of the program the top news story was, “gas prices”. Followed by a couple other segments of anti-depressant required news clips and then, a no more than 30 second clip of these troops coming home. Men who just spent fifteen months away from their families. Men, who just risked their lives, were brushed under the rug for gas prices and other depressing news. They gave their lives and they were in return given 30 seconds. This should have been the top story and a very large segment in honor of their service to our Country. One credit I will give is to channel 10 news and Jason Colthorp, his segment was very heartfelt and detailed. So thank you to channel 10 news. Here is a link for those of you who would like to see it: http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/18918119.html

I know my blog does not have thousands of daily readers yet but for those of you reading this blog I would like to say thank you to my cousin SGM David Marshall for his service and to his unit, whom, for privacy sake, I will not list their names unless requested. But nonetheless deserve honor. The men returned home with more medals and badges than there were soldiers in the unit.

Thank you for showing my son American Patriotism up close and personal. I know he will not forget it.

Happy Mother's Day

2008-05-11T11:26:00.002-04:00

I would just like to say Happy Mother's Day to all the other moms in the world. I would like to say thank you to my grandmother (grandma June) for being brave enough to bring six children into the world (three is about all I could handle physically). What a woman! Thank you grandma for all the times you have shared with me about the 'greatest days' of raising your family. I love to hear those stories, especially in this day and age. I especially love that I know if you made it through raising six children I can do it with two. I have no excuses :)

I would like to say thank you to my mother whom is a lot tougher than her appearance may portray. For those of you that do not know her she is a very small woman. But if you could measure strength in perseverance, tenacity, and "hanging in there" when life got rough she would be able to 'smack down' any of the Ultimate Fighters within seconds. Yet she is the most giving and thoughtful mother you will ever know. She always puts her family first over her own needs. She has always listened without judging and is one of the three most trustworthy people I know.

Which brings me to mommy-in-law. Thank you for raising such a wonderful son. You did a great job! I have definitely reaped the benefits of your hard work. Thank you for always being there for us when we have asked for help. Thank you for all the time you have spent praying for our marriage and family. I know we are where we are today because of your prayers. And thank you for teaching me how to be a little more detail oriented. Though hands down nobody will ever be able to beat you in that department. I appreciate what a Godly mom and grandma you are. Thank you!

And to the last person that is one of the three trustworthy ladies in my life. My sister-in-law. I know you are a mom you just have not been actually given those babies yet. And if anything were to ever happen to us I know who would mother my children and I am very secure in knowing you are so wonderful and loved by my children. I know you will be blessed someday with little ones of your own....then it will be my turn to spoil.

Happy Mother's Day!

Michigan's Schizophrenic Economy

2008-05-05T14:09:00.004-04:00

Having a hard time finding a job? Is your business suffering or tanking? Do you want to move to a more employable area but can’t because your home will not sell? If you answered yes to one or more of these questions you must live in Michigan.

I think by now everyone in the U.S. and world are familiar with the fact that Michigan is in a one state recession (so far). I am also familiar with the psychological need to blame someone or something when a failure occurs personally or professionally. So, who’s to blame for Michigan’s economy? Is it the private sector? The manufacturing industry that decided to pick up and go to another state or country for cheaper labor and overall cost of doing business? Is it the automobile industry losing business to foreign competitors? How about the Governor and Legislature creating a hostile environment having some of the highest business taxes and red tape in America deterring businesses from coming to Michigan and encouraging others to leave? Or is it the taxes on personal income coupled with gas prices that are causing consumer’s to ‘not consume’?

In the news and other media outlets, I have witnessed every single one of these factors and or people that influence these factors point the finger at one another. However, seeing as all of these factors prevail in the State of Michigan I would say it is a combination of the perfect storm. But was it a freak accident these factors occurred simultaneously? Here is my opinion as a citizen in Michigan.

Keep reading, do not be offended by this statement if you are a liberal. Liberals always promote the global community we now live in. In education, they promote a universal education curriculum. Everywhere I go this is what I hear from the liberal side and in a positive dialogue. So, this is my question. Why is it when a ‘for-profit’ company decides to move from the ‘Michigan’ part of our global village to China or Mexico, who according to liberals, are still part of the global community, they are chastised as traitors and not patriotic? I am not condescending in my question; I really would like to know if someone could give me an honest answer. I just don’t believe you can have it both ways.

Michigan has one of the most hostile business climates in our Nation. Regulatory red tape, unions that drive labor costs sky-high and fierce business taxes and income tax are the cumulative effect on our economy. This is not a bust on Democrats, as I remember, a tax hike was implemented under the Democrat controlled House and Administrative Branch, and Republican controlled Senate.

So when a company decides to maximize profit and minimize cost such as Dick DeVos did with his company, the liberals blame him. Most companies are for-profit, reporting to stakeholders, ‘American dream’ chasing enterprises. They are not goodwill outfits.

Here is the bottom line. Do I believe Governor Jennifer Granholm with her big government policies wants what is best for our State? Actually, I do. I do not agree with her methods, policies, or politics, but I believe she is sincere in her wanting to better Michigan and care for its citizens. Do I believe those opposing her views want what is best for Michigan? Yes. But they believe in less government and Capitalism.

So, here we are with very different ideals on how Michigan can recover from its economic slump. We are witnessing a civil war of politics and idealism and the casualties of war is the citizen’s of Michigan. Our economy will not move for better or worse until one side prevails and can put up or shut-up. Your thoughts?

Planned Parenthood Loves the Black Community

2008-04-28T13:42:00.003-04:00

Before we begin this topic, there will be many opportunities to discuss the issue of abortion. Please stay on the topic of today. I will be posting more on abortion throughout the next couple of weeks. But do not veer from the topic of today which is the history of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood began in 1916 and was founded by Margaret Sanger. On Planned Parenthood’s website they tout her as, “Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is one of the movement’s great heroes….”

Planned Parenthood praises Ms. Sanger for her efforts in ‘birth control’. However, there is a much more grisly aspect to Ms. Sanger’s past that most people do not know about. She was at the forefront of eugenics in the United States. Her mission was to weed out the poor and black people to develop a superior race. She was known for her ties to the Ku Klux Klan and was an advocate for Hitler’s policies. She wrote, “I hated the wretchedness and hopelessness of the poor, and never experienced that satisfaction in working among them that so many noble women have found.” She also believed, “It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think every reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”

She recruited ministers in the black community because, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs.” She viewed black people as spiritual and would probably be opposed to abortions so she recruited several black ministers to infiltrate the black church communities and do her “PR” work.

It is amazing to me that Planned Parenthood would even acknowledge such a horrific human being much less give her praise on their website. Currently, an abortion is the number one cause of death for African Americans. For every three black babies born, two are aborted. 78% of abortion clinics are in minority neighborhoods. It reminds me of a song that I heard in the 1990’s, it said, “why is there a liquor store on every corner in the hood, why? Because they want us to kill ourselves.” They should have added abortions to that song. Black people make up 12 percent of the US population and account for 32 percent of abortions.

I have one question about the eugenic history of Planned Parenthood that is still continuing today. Yes, it is still happening, view the clip of the person that wanted to earmark funds to pay for a black baby abortion because they did not want their child to have to deal with affirmative action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqNcPXefczI&feature=related

Back to my question. Many people in the black community have asked for companies who were involved in slavery to apologize for their past, they have asked for restitution, why are they not asking Planned Parenthood to apologize for their past, and apparently present?

For more information on abortion among the black community visit http://learninc.org

Al Sharpton, Are You Offended?

2008-04-23T12:43:00.003-04:00

Ok…I know Al Sharpton (I can’t even bring myself to call him a Reverend) has been on the news a lot over the past year regarding Don Imus’ comment about the basketball players ‘nappy headed hoes’ comment, which was completely deplorable by the way. And he jumped right into the mix when the white Duke LaCrosse players were “accused” of rape against a black woman. He had already given them a life sentence of spoiled, rich, good ol’ boys, when news broke that the accusations were false. And to my knowledge, he has not since apologized for his prejudice (yes, he pre-judged the boys before he knew the full story and before all evidence was presented). He was there for the Jena-6 situation and every other controversy involving racial injustice. Yes, someone needs to speak up when injustices happen I just wouldn't trust a hypocrite for my cause.

Here is my major problem with Al Sharpton (of course not the only problem but my main gripe); he is so profoundly offended when people like Don Imus make bigoted and racist comments regarding the African American Community. Let me just say, I do not agree with anything people say that is hateful or racist, from whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc., and yes, other races can be racist against white people. Now to the problem, out of all of the things that people have said and done that he is offended by; why doesn't he ever stand up for his title of Reverend? What do I mean by that? Doesn’t that title usually pertain to a man of God? That he is a leader and an example in a Christian community? So why is he never out there talking about how offended he is when he hears someone use the words, “God Damn”? When someone says the ‘N’ word he is all over them and asks for their job, yet we hear this comment ‘G-D’ all over the place on a regular basis and not once do I hear him say he is offended for God and raising the same raucous. Why is he not sticking up for a Christian community that is constantly being harassed by the government and the ACLU because of their identity? Or is he like the fig tree that Jesus cursed because although the fig tree looked like a fig tree and had leaves like the fig tree it did not bear fruit like a fig tree?

Please Al Sharpton, if you are not going to stand up for your title and stand up for God than please remove reverend from along side your name, it offends me.

Universal Healthcare Essay

2008-04-20T15:26:00.001-04:00

Below is an essay written by a very intelligent person whom I know very well (no, it's not me).

Broken Healthcare: Is Universal Healthcare the Answer?

The current model of managed healthcare system has its flaws: corporations and investors have made billions in profits at the expense of sick and dying individuals; not everyone can afford health insurance; and medical decisions should be private and based on an agreement between the patient and the doctor, and not based on decisions made by an insurance company which controls all aspects of healthcare as is the case with an HMO. Proponents of managed healthcare maintain that people are more likely to take personal responsibility for their own health if their premiums were lowered due to staying in better health and not partaking in irresponsible behavior such as smoking and consuming excessive amounts of alcohol. Instituting universal healthcare would eliminate personal responsibility. If healthcare is free, where is the incentive to stay healthy? We are a country who consumes high levels of alcohol, and refuses to quit smoking. At the same time, it seems the current healthcare industry is not in the business of ridding the country of disease; it is only in the business of managing it. I find it ironic that a substance such as smoking is still legal in this country despite conclusive facts that doing so will kill you, yet there is a plant called ibogaine, which can cure addictions without long term side effects, is deemed illegal. Apparently it is illegal due to its reported hallucinogenic, albeit temporary, effects. But then again, I suppose there is no commercial value in something that can cure disease.

Today, doctors prescribe expensive drugs as a quick fix for our ailments and to prevent disease, and now we are seeing evidence that vaccines and immunizations may be worse than the cure. According to the World Net Daily, autism was once considered rare. In the last two decades there were one in ten thousand diagnosed with autism, and only five years ago it was one in one hundred and fifty. Many of the substances found in these drugs are not something we should ingest, so why is it prescribed? According to the World Net Daily, the substances found in vaccinations include, “formaldehyde (used in embalming), thimerosal (nearly 50 percent mercury), aluminum phosphate (toxic and carcinogenic), antibiotics, phenols (corrosive to skin and toxic), aluminum salts (corrosive to tissue and neurotoxic), methanol (toxic), isopropyl (toxic), 2-pheoxyethanol (toxic), live viruses and a host of unknown components considered off-limits as trade secrets. These are just part of the vaccine mixture.” Are our drugs making our children less healthy, all for profit gains? For the first time, in the near future, our children may not outlive us.

At first thought, the idea of free healthcare may seem like a great idea. Who can argue with free medical care, free prescription drugs, and not having to deal with insurance companies? However, we all know that nothing is free. Someone must pay for it, but who? The answer is, all of us hard-working, tax-paying Americans. Are we Americans willing to sacrifice a hefty ten to twenty percent tax increase so that we can have a healthcare system which mirrors that of other countries? Deroy Murdoch of the National Review Online states, “these countries also endure high overall tax burdens, largely due to government medicine. In 2005, OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] reports, taxes as a share of GDP [Gross Domestic Product] stood at 41.2 percent in Canada, 41.9 percent in Britain, and 50.9 percent in France. America has it relatively easy, with just 31.7 percent of GDP devoured by taxes.” Also, do not forget that much of the burden will fall upon the shoulders of “evil corporate America”. I don’t believe too many people would feel sorry for large corporations who will be levied a hefty tax in order to pay for the poor down-trodden American. But let us not forget that we stand on the shoulders of giants. Who will ultimately pay the price of higher taxes and “free healthcare”? If corporations are forced to pay higher in taxes, they will have to make up the difference somewhere. If we are lucky, it will only be that wages and jobs are to be cut. If we are not, those corporations may decide to outsource those jobs, or just decide to pick up, leave, and do business in another country. Nothing is free! Someone must pay for it.

What could universal healthcare do to the current healthcare industry? We only have to look to our northern neighbors, Canada. How does their system work? Yes it is free. However, when you need care you go to a government run website, type in your zip code, and they tell you how long your wait is for the procedure you need. People are dying on waiting lists because they are unable to get the care they need. The US has a higher survival rate for heart attack victims than Canada because we do more bypass surgeries and angioplasties. There is less ingenuity and access to diagnostic procedures because there is no incentive. Murdoch states, “another drawback of high-tax-funded ‘free’ government medicine is its limited modern technology. Cato’s Michael Cannon and Michael Tanner found that in 2000, there were 13.6 CT Scanners in America per million people. There were 8.2 such devices per million Canadians and 6.5 per million Britons. While America had 1.5 of them [Lithotriptors] per-million citizens, Canada and Britain had, respectively, 0.4 and 0.2.”And, as Michael Reagan puts it, “you can get an MRI on your dog faster than you can for yourself in Canada.” Michael Tanner of the Los Angeles Times wrote, “Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that ‘access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare.’”

And what could the institution of Universal care do to the medical profession? I concede, it would be nice to cut out the middle man that is the insurance company. This would lower the overhead and reduce administrative duties, something that is definitely desirable, that is, if you own the business. But what could this do to other healthcare individuals, such as nurses, physical therapists, technicians, etc. I believe this would cause a reduction in salaries for these professionals. Where is the incentive to spend the next two to eight years in college if one is not going to be properly compensated for their efforts? As of now, doctors are fleeing their own countries to pursue higher wages, thus driving down access to healthcare in those countries. James Shaw wrote in the American Journal of Medicine, “A growing shortage of doctors has severely limited access. Medical school class sizes were reduced 10 years ago for fear of oversupply, and now more doctors are lost to retirement annually than can be trained. The shortage especially affects family physicians; fewer medical graduates are choosing family practice because of low earning potential. Entire communities are understaffed, patients are increasingly using emergency departments for primary care, and patients who relocate sometimes travel long distances to keep established family doctors. Wait times can be lengthy for routine visits, specialist appointments, and treatments. Across Canada, wait times were 77% higher in 2001 and 2002 than in 1993. Median wait time from general practitioner referral to specialist consultation is now 7.3 weeks, with the longest wait times 12.7 weeks for orthopedic surgery. From specialist appointment to treatment is an additional 9.2 weeks for all specialties, 19.3 weeks for orthopedic surgery, and 10.3 weeks for elective cardiovascular surgery.”

Those in favor of socialized medicine argue that America is lagging behind in life expectancy, and infant mortality rates, and overall health status. Proponents typically point to Canada’s model of socialized medicine. Canada’s system costs their citizens more in taxes and they a have a population that is one-fourth that of the US. The fact that our country is lagging behind other countries tells us very little about the quality of a healthcare system. Other factors must be taken into consideration such as genetics, crime, and sanitation just to name a few. The United States is among the countries with the highest obesity rates, which contribute to high blood pressure and cholesterol levels. In my opinion, proper nutrition is not pushed hard enough. We are a country plagued with diabetes and other diet disorders. Years ago, people ate foods that were natural, from the ground and from plants. Today, we eat from boxes, bags, and wrappers that are filled with ingredients that we are unable to pronounce. Foods and soda pops are infused with high fructose corn syrup. In a journal published by the American Medical Association a report suggests, “a woman who consumes just one can of a soft drink a day is 83 percent more likely to acquire diabetes than a woman who has less than one such beverage a month.”

The infant mortality rate is lower in the US, but other factors that are beyond the healthcare system should be examined. Again, we have poorer diets. Is the high abortion rate a factor? We have more single mothers raising children alone, and these mothers are less likely to receive prenatal care than a two parent household. In Canada, there is a shortage of beds in hospitals for newly expectant mothers. Mark Steyn of the National Review Online wrote, “In 2004, Debrah Cornthwaite gave birth to twin boys at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton. That's in Alberta. Mrs. Cornthwaite had begun the big day by going to her local maternity ward at Langley Memorial Hospital. That's in British Columbia. They told her, your contractions are coming every four minutes, but sorry, we don't have any beds. And, after they'd checked with the bed-availability helpline ‘BC Bedline,’ they brought her the further good news that there was not a hospital in the province in which she could deliver her babies. There followed seven hours of red tape and paperwork. Then, late in the evening, she was driven to the airport and put on a chartered twin-prop to Edmonton. How many Americans would want to do that on delivery day? You pack your bag and head to your local hospital in Oakland, and they say: Not to worry, we've got a bed for you in Denver.”

The bottom line is, in America, as Murdoch reports, “’every American hospital is required to provide emergency care to all comers, regardless of ability to pay,’ says Cato Institute healthcare analyst Michael Cannon. The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act make such services mandatory for anyone arriving within 250 yards of a U.S. emergency room.” Will we be exchanging one set of problems for a host of new ones? Do we want the government to have a monopoly on healthcare? If you enjoy your BCBS, PHP, or your MESSA insurance, you can tell it, “good by!” Why should our employer pay for us to have healthcare when the government provides it for “free”? And do those who impose such a system on its people plan on utilizing such a system for them selves? I doubt it. Michael Moore touts countries that have universal healthcare, but how good can it be? As Deroy Murdoch puts it, “Moore shows Michiganders driving into Canada for ‘free’ medical attention. What he leaves unseen are the Canadians who come to America for treatment. Canada, along with only Cuba and North Korea, forbids its citizens from paying doctors for private medical treatment. In a kind of therapeutic Underground Railroad, Vancouver’s Timely Medical Alternatives, Inc. helps Canadians avoid lengthy medical waiting lists by arranging for their treatment in American hospitals. It says its clients can be operated on within seven days through its U.S. partners rather than six to ten months under Canadian government medicine.” Cuba has universal healthcare, but even its leader, Fidel Castro, refuses to use it. He has his doctor flown in from Spain, as was the case in 2006. At least for now we have a system in place where we can shop around different insurance companies for healthcare that will keep costs low.

If the government is the only institution where we can receive care, it will ultimately cost us. Any time the government proposes a budget to the American taxpayer it usually ends up being millions of dollars more. I propose we give power back to the people. Let us keep our money. Do we want the same people in government who gave us social security and its associated problems to be in charge of our healthcare as well? Think about it. The government taxes your earnings so when you retire you will receive a social security check. However, when you retire, the money you receive is less than what you put in, and the money you do receive is again taxed. This is what some people in congress are proposing for healthcare. There are also those in congress who denounce the bang up job of FEMA and the ineptitude of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, which is a single payer plan like universal healthcare. Do you want these same people to conduct your heart surgery, orthopaedic surgery, and vasectomies?

When do we as citizens begin to take personal responsibility for ourselves, and stop asking the government to fix everything for us? Borrowing from Andrew Wilkow, a popular Sirius radio talk show host, he points to “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” which maintains the most important and basic needs of man include food, water, warmth, shelter, and safety. Why do we not ask the government to pay for these items? I believe these needs are more important than healthcare. I want the government to institute universal food rations, universal clothes, and universal housing; after all, these items are more important and should also be a right. While we are at it, I need gas to get to work, oh yeah! I need a car to put it in to get to work. But then again, if fifty percent of my taxes are going to pay for “free” healthcare, I may as well stay home and receive government assistance. I can go to work and make $15,000, or I can stay home and make $15,000. Can you imagine if most everyone took this attitude? Where would the government get the money to pay for healthcare if there were no, or very few, pay checks to garnish? Making something a right does not make something owed to you. The second amendment is a right. Should the government buy all law-abiding citizens a handgun?

In my opinion, more power should be given back to the people. Let us keep more of our tax dollars and let us decide for ourselves what is best for us. A new healthcare system should be based more closely to the current 401K-retirement system. You keep more of your tax dollars, which are put into a health account, that money is not taxed, but rather treated as investment. Also, the people would be allowed to withdrawal from their health account without penalty, unlike a stock investment. The healthier you stay, the less you spend, and the more you keep, and when you die, it is used for funeral costs, or is passed down to your children. I am not an expert. Please, do your own homework, educate, and inform yourself. We have an election coming up, and this system of healthcare is being proposed among those running for our highest office. Do not only listen to the mainstream media as many of them are pushing for this legislation. And, don’t just listen to me. You be the judge.

Parental Rights Amendment in Michigan

2008-04-15T13:30:00.004-04:00

House Joint Resolution (HJR) NN is a resolution introduced by Representative John Stahl R-North Branch, that would amend the Michigan State Constitution to ensure the fundamental parental rights of Michigan’s citizens to parent their children without interference from our government. Below is the language of this resolution for a proposed constitutional amendment:

“Parents and legal guardians have a natural and fundamental right to direct the care, education, and upbringing of their children. No government action shall burden, abridge, or hinder this natural, fundamental right unless it is in the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

This is very refreshing legislation. It seems that all we hear about lately is the government’s intrusion into the private lives of families. Homeschooler’s in California were told they couldn’t homeschool, required immunizations of children in Washington D.C. or parents could suffer severe consequences at the hands of the government (even though there is evidence linking many childhood diseases to these immunizations), mental health screenings of students at school without parental permission, forced drugging of these children if the parents refuse and neglect charges being brought against parents. In Michigan, introduced legislation requiring homeschooler’s to register with the State (HB 5912) and another piece of legislation that would require all children who turn five by December 1^st to report to school (HB 4462). The Gestapo, I mean, government has been pushing its boundaries into the lives of families in recent years so this constitutional amendment is definitely needed and warranted.

This legislation was introduced on January 24, 2008 and if it receives two-thirds approval from the House and Senate, it would appear on the 2008 ballot for the citizen’s to vote. This is a bipartisan initiative with Rep. Sheltrown D-West Branch as the Democrat sponsor of the bill. The legislation has 80 co-sponsors (80 representatives who have signed on to sponsor and support the resolution).

If this legislation has bi-partisan support, why has the resolution not been taken up and voted on in committee or on the House floor? As a previous employee of the Legislature, I believe I know the answer. There is a game that is played downtown to the detriment of the Michigan citizens and it is called politics. I believe all the Republicans and many of the Democrats would be on board with this resolution. However, there are a select number of Democrats that are very liberal and believe “government knows best”. They would vote no on a resolution essentially telling parents they do not have the right to parent their children and that being a parent is not a fundamental right not to be interfered with by the government. Oh, and did I mention this is an election year? Did I also mention both the Senate (Republican controlled) and House (Democrat controlled) are in jeopardy of losing seats if the Speaker of the House allows controversial votes such as these? In other words, Speaker Andy Dillon (D-Redford Twp.), who has the power to determine what will be voted on in the House will not allow this resolution to be taken up because it would look bad for the House and Senate Democrat party if its members voted against parents. This vote could come back to bite these candidates during an election year where they would be forced to answer to their constituents.

How many times have we seen in the news the problems of parents not taking responsibility for their children? This resolution is protecting the rights of parents and informing them that it is in fact their responsibility and not the governments to give values and morals and education to their children. So as a government in Michigan elected by parents, it would be in their best interest to vote on this bill or those parents may elect fellow parents in the next election that will do the job.

Contact your representative and Speaker Andy Dillon to let them know that you would like this resolution to be voted on in committee and on the House floor. Below is a link for you to find your representative and the office of Speaker Dillon.

Find your Representative

www.house.mi.gov

Speaker Andy Dillon

Email: andydillon@house.mi.gov

Phone: 517-373-0857

The Self-Esteem of America

2008-04-13T11:03:00.001-04:00

How many times have we heard ‘if you tell a child he is nothing, that he will never amount to anything’ the child will eventually believe and end up with low self-esteem, many times, in fact, amounting to ‘nothing’. If everyone is in general agreement that if we say and hear repeatedly a particular message, we believe it as adults; why is it we are allowing a venom of negativity to permeate throughout this Country? It seems no matter where I go, no matter what I am listening to; within minutes there is someone whining about something. I don’t have enough money, my kids are horrible and disobedient, this nation is going down hill, the economy is crappy, I can’t stand ___________(insert name), he/she is ruining our Country. It seems most music is about the problems in people’s lives and how horrible this world has become.

Is your personal motto a picture of a crying baby? If you feel the people of this Country have let you down and those in leadership are ruining everything, take your finger and turn it toward yourself because most likely you are part of the problem. I am so tired of complaining and whining in this Country. I know there are issues in all of our lives that need to be dealt with. I am not talking about addressing and discussing issues and problems. I am referring to the incessant crying, whining attitude that has seemed to have grasped our Nation. ‘It’s not fair’, ‘she offended me’, ‘I don’t have enough’, ‘that candidate is the devil incarnate’, ‘nobody likes America’, ‘we are horrible people for causing global warming’, ‘you are going to hell because you are posting to your blog on a Sunday.'

No matter what other countries think, we are the greatest nation on earth. We are a free nation who luckily has enough tough guys that are willing to fight for our freedom. Yes, other countries hate us, but guess what? Life is not a popularity contest. Doing what is right most times is not doing what is popular. Being a leader is standing up to opposition because it is right. If we as adults cannot grasp this and ‘practice what we preach’, how will we expect our children to grasp this basic concept?

People in America are being absorbed into a culture of hate, whining, and everything is horrible mentality because of a few people with a lot of money and media. They tell you your life is horrible, or it will eventually become horrible. You are going to end up broke (the economy), homeless (home foreclosures), your family will leave you, you will acquire an illness (cancer, staph, biological warfare diseases), your child will be the victim of a child abuser, and our country will eventually self implode because of a collective low-self esteem and we won’t amount to anything psychology. Oh, the last one could actually be true.

We live in a Country where we can agree to disagree, majority rules (or it is supposed to), if we don’t like leadership we can kick them out, we can own a Bible and worship the Lord without fear of death or imprisonment, we have access to an abundance of food and fresh water, and natural resources. Most of us have a home to shelter us, heat to warm us, and in many instances cold air when it’s hot. We don’t have to walk eight miles for a jug of dirty water, we can hop in a car or bus and get where we need to immediately. Most of us have more than one pair of shoes, clothing etc.

So how have we become a nation of whiners with no backbone or thankfulness? The downfall of this country will not be because of external forces. It will be because of this nations collective low self-esteem and apathy towards its problems. How hard is it for you to be positive for a whole day, regardless of your circumstances? You might be part of a national psychological breakdown.

The remedy? Turn off your television and radio for one week. Play with your children, read an enlightening book, don’t listen to the news, if you watch television watch ‘Leave it to Beaver’, or ‘The Andy Griffith Show’, or ‘Little House on the Prairie’, i.e. fifties and sixties family shows. It sounds corny but try it. Then after one week turn on all the outside influences and see how you feel after one day. Good luck!

Bitterness + Unforgiveness =Radical Feminism

2008-04-09T13:50:00.003-04:00

Where I think the women’s movement veered was radical women who had a vendetta against men launched a campaign that went far beyond the original intent of this movement. Women who had a lot of bitterness (it is obvious in the quotes I have shared) and hatred toward men. When someone is bitter and lacks forgiveness for those who have offended or wronged them it leads to hate, it creates a hate culture, and eventually the hate ruins anything once considered good. Hate will ruin individuals; it will ruin an entire city, state and country (this goes for everyone who breeds hate, especially those who call themselves Christians.) The radical feminist movement of women’s liberation, destruction of marriage, every man is a rapist, and the sexual revolution, in my opinion, was spawned from angry and bitter women. Had they just felt it necessary to right the wrongs and forgive the rest, our country would be in a much better state than it is today.

I am still perplexed as I read and listen to many of these women who seemed otherwise intelligent promoting the ideal that women who have sexual relations with men and do not marry or require a commitment from the man deem this to be a higher form of respect for themselves and demand society respects them as well. A carnal man sees a woman who will sleep with him outside of marriage, and she is on the pill or some other form of contraception so he doesn’t have to worry about getting her pregnant, and if she does get pregnant she will abort the baby, and oh by the way, she has no intention of “being trapped in marriage”, and says, wow, I really respect her? No….he says yes, rights without responsibility! I don’t have to commit and get to “hook up”.

Women in this movement by lowering their morality standards have actually demanded less respect. Because women have lost respect for themselves, their body and have ditched any sense of morality, men have merely followed suit. And we wonder why we have a society of men that have a hard time committing to their families, addictions to pornography, and use the ‘b’ word like the word ‘the’. Another consequence of free love and radical feminism.

Feminism and the Traditional Family

2008-04-07T13:51:00.003-04:00

The feminist movement of the 1960’s brought about a change in the landscape of America. One of their main objectives as stated by many of the leaders of this movement was to destroy marriage. Some of the other goals of these women were to be equal to men in the eyes of man, to be respected and to have careers where they were paid equally for their work. Today I will discuss the issue of their objective to destroy marriage. I will discuss the other goals at a later date.

In the previous blog, there were several quotes from some of the well-known feminists regarding their goal of ending marriage so that women would not be ‘slaves’ anymore. Just to recap here are some of their quotes:

“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” - - Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” –Sheila Cronin, Leader of the National Organization of Women

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” –Marilyn French, Authoress (later, advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign)

As several people have commented, those radical feminists gave women these rights. Yes, they finished the work of many of the women that fought before them. Instead of stating that they would like to be treated fairly, respected and have equal pay for equal work, these women went far beyond an injustice and chose to seek vengeance for these apparent discrepancies in equality. The feminist movement would like to take credit for disassembling marriages and family units consisting of a mother and father or ‘a slave and a man’ as stated by these women. If we look at the demographics of an average household in America today as compared to prior to 1960, the family is in shambles and the feminists have come very close to achieving their stated goals.

One of the main reasons for the downfall of traditional family, and consequently the suffering of our children is due to the radical feminist movement. They have done a very good job at destroying marriage and confusing people about their gender and roles as they relate to their children. Let me give one disclaimer before every jumps all over personal responsibility: Yes, people who marry and divorce, it is a personal choice and yes not all of the breakdown of the family is based on the feminist movement. But they have been a major contributor.

Since the radical feminists love taking credit for equality and advances in the defeat of marriage, one can only attribute the fallout from their endeavors to the following statistics:

Since 1960 the divorce rate has increased more than 100 percent.

Prior to 1960 there were no records for cohabitation. Now 41 percent of American women ages fifteen to forty-four have cohabitated.

From 1960 to 2000, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has gone from 5.3 to 33 percent.

Less than half of teenage children live with both biological parents.

Children of divorce are twice as likely to drop out of school as those from intact homes, three times as apt to have a baby out of wedlock, five-fold more likely to be in poverty and 12 times more apt to be incarcerated. Judith Wallerstein followed 100 children of divorce for 25 years after parental divorce. Only 60 of the 100, now aged 27-43, had ever married vs. 84 percent of those from intact families. And 25 of the 60 had already divorced, leaving only a third who built lasting marriages. McManus: Ethics & Religion Sept. 14, 2004 Column #1,203 Advance for Sept.18, 2004 Mutual Consent Divorce Reform by Michael J. McManus. Cited in a posting from Smart Marriages Listserv on Sept. 15, 2004.

The sons of single parents are more prone to commit suicide as adults than others, and daughters are more likely to have abortions and more children. The risk of suicide doubled if sons were raised by single parents. When compared with people who grew up in a traditional family with both parents, children of single parents are hospitalized more often due to injuries and poisonings. The sons of single parents also commit more crimes. Licentiate in Medicine Anu Sauvola studied some 11,000 young people, two thousand of whom came from families with one parent or guardian. The lives of the children are followed from before birth to 32 years of age. The study revealed that the family background of childhood is connected to problems in adulthood, such as physical illnesses, premature death and crime. Helsinki Sanomat: "Children raised by single parents more prone to difficulties in adulthood" April 20, 2001, Cited in a posting from Smart Marriages Listserv on April 21, 2001.

Among long-term prison inmates, 70 percent grew up without fathers, as did 60 percent of rapists and 75 percent of adolescents charged with murder.

Fatherless children are three times more likely to fail school, require psychiatric treatment and commit suicide as adolescents.

They are also up to 40 times more likely to experience child abuse compared with children growing up in two-parent families.
...
Source: Wade Horn and Andrew Bush, "Fathers, Marriage, and Welfare Reform,"
Hudson Institute Executive Briefing, 1997, Hudson Institute, Herman Kahn Center, 5395 Emerson Way, Indianapolis, IN 46226, (317) 545-1000.

Children who come from homes where one of the parents have died do better emotionally, in school and their careers than children from divorce.

But according to Adrienne Rich in her book ‘Of Woman Born’ women have the right to engage in sex with anyone she chooses, and to abort the child if she does not want it and women need to be free from bearing children within the context of marriage. She believes society should take care of the child.

So Ms. Rich and other radical feminists, we have seen the fruits of your labor. Who needs a father right?

Radical Feminism (Selfish) vs. Women of Courage (Selfless)

2008-04-04T10:16:00.001-04:00

I believe there is a huge distinction between what most people in America think of as a “feminist” and women who fought for women’s rights in the area of voting, employment and equal pay. When most people here the word feminist they think of hate filled women who hate everything male and betray other women who exercise their women’s rights not to share their views. I would like to make a clear distinction between these two women.

There are many outstanding women throughout time that represent true woman heroism. In the Bible there was:

Esther – Esther was the Queen of King Xerxes and through her tenacity and faith was able to save the Nation of Israel from annihilation.

Deborah the Judge – Deborah was a judge and prophetess who sent her nation off to fight King Sisera and told her general the king would be killed. Because the general was afraid he asked Deborah to go with them. She agreed but prophesied that because of his lack of faith he would not receive the glory of the defeat of the opposing army but that King Sisera would be delivered to the hands of a woman.

The woman who killed King Sisera - She was the one who had the courage and intelligence to lure King Sisera into the comfort of her tent and while he was sleeping she drove a tent peg through his head.

Mary the Mother of Jesus – Need I say more?

Mother Teresa –Did she fight for her rights? No, she gave her life selflessly to helping others, she was not selfish, she was selfless.

There are many other women throughout history that were faithful and willing to step up with courage but this is a blog, not a Bible Study so I do not have time to discuss most of them.

Recently, in America there were and are many women that fought for women’s rights and won. One of my favorite quotes is, “Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, except only backwards and in high heels.” There is no doubt that a women’s movement was needed to shore up many of the inequalities that women faced. But just like every other carnality and work of flesh, when we do something in our own will and not in God’s will…. we end up with extreme radical feminists whose main goal is to abolish the gender differences and traditional family for their own personal vendetta and selfish gain. If you think what I am saying is extreme, let the women speak for themselves. Below are quotes from women who are the embodiment of feminism:

“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” - - Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” –Marilyn French, Authoress (later, advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign)

“The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to by fully feminist.” –National NOW Times, January 1988)

So when I discuss feminism, I must be distinct in that I am talking about radical feminism.

What kind of woman are you? Are you the woman who gives selflessly in everything you do for your God, family and Country? Do you put the needs of others first, yet are willing to stand up when there is an injustice and have faith in God to give you the courage to do what Esther did? Then you are probably a traditional mother and wife i.e. selfless.

Or are you the type of woman that pursues first her own carnal desires, needs to establish her career first, climb the social ladder, have your name in the newspaper, then, if you feel like it, give to your family and friends the remnants of your energy? Do you scream and cry foul every time something seems lopsided and “you didn’t get a piece.”? Is your emblem that of a crying and whiny baby that is not receiving attention? Did a man wrong you and now the whole gender is going to pay? Then you may be a radical feminist i.e. selfish woman.

Are you selfless or selfish?

The History of Feminism in America

2008-04-02T13:28:00.000-04:00

This week I will begin a new topic on feminism. Hold on men…don’t go anywhere, you may learn something about your wife, sister, aunt, grandma or mother.

The History of Feminism in America

Although the concept and ideals of feminism began before the 1960’s, this is the decade when this philosophy really emerged and was grasped by a large number of women, changing the landscape of our country for the worse.

Before I go any further let me say that I am thankful for the women who fought for ‘equal pay for equal work’. If a woman is in a position where she has to work or does not have young children and chooses to work than she should be paid fairly for her contribution to the workplace. I am thankful for the women who have to work to provide for their children are able to do so and find many lucrative careers to choose from. However, feminism, in my opinion has done far more harm than good. I believe that there are many factors and reasons for this opinion that will be shared throughout this topic.

There were many issues women had to overcome such as the right to vote, which did not occur until 1920. Women have been able to vote for less than 100 years. During World War II many women took up work in the factories since many of our men were fighting overseas. Thus this was one of the first waves of women entering the workforce in droves in America and working outside the home. However, that was short-lived as after the war most women returned to the home to care for their families.

However, in the 1960’s a large movement began with several women, among them was Betty Friedan. Although there were others before her, Betty was known for beginning a dialogue among women that convinced many of them they were dissatisfied, empty and ‘trapped as a housewife.’ Betty Friedan believed:

There is only one way for women to reach full human potential—by participating in the mainstream of society, by exercising their own voice in all the decisions shaping that society. For women to have full identity and freedom, they must have economic independence. Breaking through the barriers that had kept them from the jobs and professions rewarded by society was the first step, but it wasn’t sufficient. It would be necessary to change the rules of the game to restructure professions, marriage, the family, the home.

Amid the 60’s and 70’s an explosion of books regarding the oppression of women were published. Most of these books capitalized on every woman’s fears, weaknesses and failures in their minds, homes and marriages (sounds like a tactic of satan). Although the women’s liberation movement declared they were there to help their ‘sisters’ out of traumatic housewife situations they merely enslaved women to a different set of issues that will be discussed in a later blog.

The most infamous women involved in the feminist movement preyed on the housewife and convinced them there lives were worthless if they were at home merely ironing, cooking, and caring for their children and husbands. They were just as manipulative as their supposed antithesis, the patriarch. The infamous women were Betty Friedan, Simone De Beauvoir, Gloria Steinam, Shulamith Firestone, Juliet Mitchell, Kate Millett, Susan Brownmiller, Letty Russell, among others.

Although the woman’s liberation movement has slowed over much of the last decade, many women, especially my age and younger, are not aware of the extreme views these women held regarding the role of women and men. Below are some select quotes from these women:

Adrienne Rich – Patriarchy is the power of the fathers: a familial-social, ideological, political system in which men—by force, direct pressure, or through ritual, tradition, law and language, customs, etiquette, education, and the division of labor—determine what part women shall or shall not play, and in which the female everywhere subsumed under the male.

Shulamith Firestone – The heart of woman’s oppression is her childbearing and childrearing roles.

Simone De Beauvoir – Woman has ovaries, a uterus; these peculiarities imprison her in her subjectivity, circumscribe her within the limits of her own nature…

Susan Brownmiller – Female fear of an open season of rape, and not a natural inclination toward monogamy, motherhood, or love, was probably the single causative factor in the original subjugation of woman by man, the most important key to her historic dependence, her domestication by protective mating.

It is unfortunate that the bad experiences of a few women, in my opinion, caused many of the social ills our families face today. The ironic thing is…these women, even to this day, when faced with a woman exercising her ‘independence and freedom’ against their movement and decide to form a traditional family and “choosing” to stay at home and be a housewife (such as myself) are coined as traitors and are berated and intimidated. hmmmm….sounds like they are acting like the very men they are accusing of such crimes. Is it really true liberation if a woman is freed from the confines of motherhood and being a housewife only to be enslaved and intimidated to the women’s liberation movement? Sounds like an oxymoron.

Federal Standards vs. State Constitutional Education Rights

2008-03-28T09:22:00.000-04:00

The Constitution specifies that education is a reserved right for the state and local governments. That means, the states and local governments dictate what curriculum etc. is taught to our children. This was just one more added safeguard to ensure the federal government was not overreaching in its power.

However, one of the first global educational policy agreements signed on to by the United States was the “The Dakar Framework for Action.” Quite interesting is the fact that the Federal No Child Left Behind standards are basically the same standards set by this global policy agreement. And who was responsible for this framework, UNESCO (United Nations).

Since our states are responsible for curriculum, why does it seem that we are adhering to a national, and subsequently global education agreement? It is really quite simple. The way the federal government entices states to “go along” with their federal requirements is through the purse strings. If states do not follow these requirements then they will not receive education dollars. hmmmmm….is bribery illegal in this country? Those are our tax dollars after all.

In a quote from a Washington progress report on these standards: Consciousness is thus growing among U.S. educators that…educational outcomes must now meet not only national but international standards. [p. 15 of the Progress Report]

As I have said before, it may sound benign; and what is wrong with having everyone on the same educational path as the rest of the world? Well, for those who had a glimmer of hope that we will actually be able to one day teach Creationism or Intelligent Design along with the theory of evolution, good luck. For those who are already fighting with keeping their rights to pray in school or say the pledge of allegiance with ‘Under God’ (or at all), this will eventually be no more. I am sure it will be replaced with a global pledge of allegiance. For those of you that are already in a firestorm that they are teaching revisionist history and making our Founding Fathers out to be animals, it will only get worse. If you don’t like sex education or homosexuality being taught to your children, this will no longer be an option for you. If you simply do not want the state, federal or global governments teaching your children their worldly views, I suggest you start paying attention to what your government is doing and get involved.

In the State of Michigan new legislation was introduced to require homeschooler’s to report to the local Superintendent the ages of all children in the home. Why would they require this? So they know where all children are when these eventual new requirements come in to place. There will come a day when homeschooling will no longer be legal. We are already seeing this attempt in other states.

What is the best way to indoctrinate our citizen’s of this Country into a global government mindset and no longer have a pride of Country where this sort of thing will never be aloud to happen? Start with the children. Teach them that they are learning the same educational requirements as kids all around the world. Teach them a global view of the world and not a national view. Teach them all the views you want them to behold that will set their minds toward a one world government. And when they become adults, our way of thinking will be another form bigotry. Our generation and generations before us will be ‘old school mentality’ and those adults will handily give over our national sovereignty to the United Nations.

Coming Soon

2008-03-27T13:19:00.002-04:00

I will be posting a new blog soon. The plague has hit my family. I also plan on adding a couple of things to the blog so come back and check it out in the next couple of days~

Thanks!

The US and China Flags Combined

2008-03-24T09:41:00.000-04:00

While I was working for the Legislature my boss had received an invitation to the grand opening of the US-China Center for Research on Educational Excellence at Michigan State University. Again, why is everything China these days? Is it because they are slowly coming into ownership of America?

I was sent to the grand opening and surprised at the information I was given. First of all, they had several promotional materials with the American flag and the Chinese flag combined. Yes, our flag was connected to the Chinese flag if you can believe that (I have the picture sitting in front of me as I type this). The goal of the new program at MSU is to create an educational initiative (such as the Chinese Immersion Preschool Programs already in place) to gain a Chinese perspective on educational excellence. The opening statement of a conference notice on secondary education reform states, “China’s emergence as a powerful economic force in the global market place has profound implications for today’s American high school students, particularly those living in the Great Lakes States.” Where did we get the money for this program in the first place? The Center was funded with a $5 million donation from the Hong Kong-based Sun Wah Education Foundation. Looks like another attempt to purchase America. They are now purchasing our students in my opinion.

‘The Confucius Institute at Michigan State University” has incorporated a ‘Curriculum Framework for Excellence’ for ‘Education for Global Citizenship (EGC) Schools’. Yes that would mean a global curriculum for us ‘global citizens’ not Americans. The stated goal is, “The Education for Global Citizen Schools were created to prepare young children for these new global challenges – to prepare children to become effective Global Citizens.” The new mindset and curriculum these programs want to teach our children are quite frightening. Some of the objectives for preschool and kindergarten are as follows:

The challenge is to help children appreciate the power they have to cause change and channel that energy towards positive endeavors. By providing opportunities to take action and observe consequences, children learn to appreciate their roles as change agents and become responsible for making wise choices. (In my opinion they are teaching our children to be activists.)

Energy is the underlying currency that fuels the universe.

As children extend their understandings to appreciate how human action affects the natural world, they can learn about species preservation. As children observe how plants thrive or die according to heat, rain, and soil conditions (i.e. global warming), they solidify their understandings of the ever important role of environment for all creatures of the earth.

Throughout this curriculum are quotes from various intellectuals, including Confucius. Of course they can quote Confucius but not Jesus. But the bigger question is, what on earth are we doing in America teaching our children Chinese teachings and a global education curriculum? Is there any Legislator in Michigan willing to address this issue? This is being done right in front of us and nobody seems to even notice or care. I have a real problem when someone takes the American flag and combines it with a Communist country. I would love to hear from Legislators in Michigan or otherwise that actually has a problem with this and will address the issue of this global education endeavor.

Early Education in Michigan

2008-03-20T09:19:00.001-04:00

Governor Granholm first announced her plan for early education in her State of the State address February 2005. Since then the government has earmarked millions of dollars to pay for this program. Granholm stated, “In the State of Michigan, we recognize that genius is created in cradle, and dropouts are also created in the cradle.” So she has developed a program that will invade the cradles of our babies.

The program known as the Early Childhood Investment Corporation (ECIC) is setup the same as the MEDC. It is a corporation that will allow both public and private dollars to be used to expand early childhood development efforts. The State believes ‘One in three children begin school with learning and developmental needs that have a significant impact on achievement, drop-out rates, crime and eventual earnings potential’. I would agree with the fact that children have learning and developmental needs…. that’s why they are going to school! The early childhood promoters believe a child could become a criminal and dropout if they don’t receive early education services? This is ridiculous. It is the parent’s responsibility to care for, nurture and teach their children. Again, in a previous post, studies were quoted that show these very programs might be the problem with behavioral issues. The more time a child spends in these programs at a young age the more problems they had with self-control and increased behavioral problems. When the parents do not step up and willingly give their children over to a government mindset these programs are the result. I understand that many parents work full-time jobs and the kids are already in daycare. I know, I was one of those parents. But there is a difference between putting a child in a loving environment where they learn to socialize, share, tell the truth, basic character traits all children need to be able to grasp before having their little brains bombarded with information.

Another question I would like answered is Early Education was formed with a partnership between the Department of Human Services (DHS) and local branch ISD’s; what does Human Services have to do with the development of a child’s brain? Is this another way for the government to step in to our homes? We don’t need social workers standing over our shoulders to ensure that we are parenting correctly. Former DHS director Marianne Udow explained this partnership best; “We need to ensure that Michigan’s children receive the care that will prepare them for success in school and life.” Again, this should be the parent’s job, not the government. If a parent asks for help then that is fine. But we should not have a government program, paid for with our tax dollars, which will aid the government in parenting our children.

I understand there are children in Michigan and across the country that are considered ‘at-risk’. I also understand that these children may benefit from a school environment then at home due to an unsafe or abusive environment. However, there are far more children that come from good homes with good parents than the ‘at-risk’ children. There are already services and programs the government has put together to help these children. If Gov. Granholm does not believe that these programs are effective, then why do they think a ‘new program’ would help?

If Gov. Granholm is really concerned for children and their well-being, she should cut the government budget to bare bones, give tax relief and incentives to families, and keep the government out of our homes. The government that governs less governs best.

UNESCO and Early Education

2008-03-17T09:58:00.002-04:00

I will be posting on the topic of early education for the next week. This segment will start with a top-down approach on the inception of the early education program.

UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) was founded on November 16, 1945. The supposed goal of this educational arm of the United Nations is to ‘build peace in the minds of men’.

One of their main objectives is ‘Achieve universal primary education in all countries by 2015’. In a UNESCO policy brief on universal early education and care, UNESCO states, “Early Childhood care and education is the concern of many governmental sectors, notably the education, social affairs (Department of Human Services) and health care sectors. Coordination among these sectors in policy development and implementation is essential for ensuring the child’s holistic development and the efficient use of government resources.’ In layman’s terms, the United Nations objective is to have a one world education system beginning with the youngest members of our society. They not only believe it is the role of government to educate our children, but it is the role of government (not the parent) to take care of our children in the area of health care and social services (i.e. ensuring parents are adhering to the governments laws as it pertains to our children).

What educational objectives will they have for our children? Well, given that the UN does not look favorably upon America or our democracy the curriculum will indoctrinate our children into their global government and big brother ideals. Yes, I am sure they will have curriculum in place for benign subjects such as math, but they will want us to think globally instead of nationally when it comes to teaching history and social studies. Again, undermining our sovereignty and Constitution.

Regarding early childhood education and care the UN is creating a Community-based Education Management System, C-EMIS. They specify, “Unlike existing government EMIS systems, C-EMIS endeavors to include all children (in and out of school). It provides a structure for collecting data at the lowest level (from children on doorsteps), and its use by local stakeholders.’ Did I just read that the UN wants to develop a database that begins with ‘all children’? I think even the ACLU would have a problem with this.

The bottom line is that the United Nations goal is have in place by 2015 a global education system that will expand to include the youngest members of our society. They are already attempting to track day centers, homes and home-schools to bring these businesses/homes in line with their global government policies. Once they can track our businesses and children they will put our children into a ‘database’ to track them for ‘needed educational services’. That does not sound very American to me. Unfortunately this program has already landed on America’s shores.

For more information on UNESCO go to www.unesco.org.

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Rules The World

2008-03-14T14:02:00.001-04:00

Why would the government do this to an economy that is already suffering? Because once the daycares are shut down there will be nowhere to go except the state-run school system.

Michigan Is Not Far Behind California

2008-03-12T13:14:00.000-04:00

I attended a legislative briefing yesterday in Lansing and found that Michigan is already beginning their journey into government’s intrusion on parent’s rights to choose their children’s educational path.

House Bill 4662 (Rep. Virgil Smith) has introduced a bill that would ‘require’ all children to be enrolled in school by the time they are five years old. Not encourage or highly suggest, but require. Why does government continue to make senseless laws that impugn on our rights to parent our children? Why are they making laws that categorize children Carte Blanche into one category not taking into consideration their individual social and emotional readiness for school? Below is an extract from the actual bill that was introduced. As of yet there have been no amendments and we have been briefed there could be a vote on this bill in the House Education Committee very soon.

House Bill 4662:

(2) A child becoming 5 years of age before December 1 shall

17 be enrolled on the first school day of the school year in which the

18 child's FIFTH birthday occurs. A child becoming 5 years of

19 age on or after December 1 shall be enrolled on the first school

20 day of the school year following the school year in which the

21 child's FIFTH birthday occurs.

Anytime there is a reference of the age five, this is the new requirement. The number used to be six years of age.

As a parent it is our responsibility to determine when a child enters school, not the government. If a child is ready at four years of age (turning five by the required December 1^st date) then that is at the parent’s discretion. Some children may be ready at an early age or they may have a disability or social emotional complications that may require them to wait another year. Or, the parents just may want to, as their right, keep the child home one more year.

Furthermore any advantage children receive from an ‘early education’ fully dissipates by the time they are in the second grade. Children who attend school earlier than children who may have waited are equal in academic competency by the second grade. In research performed by W. Steven Barnett at Rutgers University Center for Early Education it was reported, “ …new findings contradicted previous work and the views of most “experts” that child care was not harmful for children’s social and emotional development. In fact, the NICHD results reveal nothing new. Child care (of all types) for 30 hours or more per week was associated with more reported behavior problems at age two, but not age three, and then again at ages four and five.

The National Bureau of Economic Research also indicated, “ the authors conclude that while attending a prekindergarten program improves students’ reading and mathematic skills, increased classroom behavioral problems and reduced self-control may also result from such programs.’

Not only would this bill once again impugn on our right to parent our children, but also they are setting our children up for failure. If citizens of this state do not begin expressing their opinion and contacting their legislators about frivolous and detrimental bills such as the one Rep. Virgil Smith has proposed, then I guess we get what we deserve; a nanny state that wants to adopt our children. If you would like to contact your legislator below is a link to the House of Representatives:

http://www.house.michigan.gov/

Whatever Happened to Reading, Writing and Arithmetic

2008-03-10T17:52:00.000-04:00

I will be starting an education segment this week in light of the California Appellate Court ruling last week that parents homeschooling their children are violating law under California’s Education Code; and the parents have no constitutional rights regarding their homeschooling decision. Children must be enrolled in an approved private school or public school.

The 2^nd Appellate Court determined, “keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where they could interact with people outside the family.” “There are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children’s lives, and they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ ‘cloistered’ setting.

Since when did the courts and the school system determine what is best for our individual children? Are our children now products of the state? There are several issues at stake regarding this ruling.

First, the parents, many with religious convictions, do not want their children in California schools because of the laws the State has passed regarding secular humanistic teachings. One of the most controversial laws passed last year requires teaching curriculum to include promoting homosexuality as normal and positive (Senate Bill 777). Where does this fit into reading, writing and arithmetic? I do not have anything against homosexuals. In fact, God loves homosexuals just as he loves me. He does not like the ‘act’ of homosexuality (along with the act of drunkenness, that act of gossip…for those of us sitting on a high horse at the moment). However, I should be able to teach my children my value system as it relates to the Bible. I will always teach my children to respect EVERYONE regardless of their personal decisions, however, I will teach them that what God says in the Bible is immoral, is in fact immoral. Sorry if you disagree. If you don’t want my morals and biblical teachings taught in school than yours had better not be there either. While many in the homosexual community are rejoicing over this ruling because they currently like what the system is teaching about their values; what if a new study came out showing that homosexuality is a deadly lifestyle and nobody should partake of it? What if you wanted to home-school your children because the State now says to teach your lifestyle as a death sentence? You just supported the State taking away your rights because of the momentary curriculum change. If you think it can’t happen just look back 50 years when there was prayer in school.

Here is a little history fact…Adolf Hitler outlawed homeschooling in Germany in 1938. He wanted all children in public schools so he could indoctrinate them with nazi ideologies. Sounds familiar?

Another concern is the ruling stated, “There are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children’s lives….”. When did our constitutional rights change to “guilty until proven innocent?” And when did California as a state adopt the philosophy, ‘one bad apple ruins the bunch’? This is not constitutional. The State is saying that they do not trust parents. The State doesn’t trust us? I thought that is supposed to be the other way around. They already employ CPS workers for this very reason. If there is reliable suspicion, then they should investigate. But we should not require all children to be under state supervision for a ‘just in case scenario’; talk about usurping our inalienable right to parent our children.

If you are a parent, intend to be a parent, or support a parent’s right to parent I would suggest that you get involved. The State of California has taken away a parents right to determine what is best for their children, has adopted a law created by Hitler, and has determined parents are guilty of harming and detrimental to their children if they do not put them in a State school or State approved private school. There is a petition currently on www.family.org that anyone can log onto and sign. It is referred to as the HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) petition. You do not have to be a resident of California or a homeschooling parent. I would suggest everyone, regardless of your views on the curriculum to sign this petition. Everyone knows what happens in California tends to work its way into other states.

Global Warming and Socialist America

2008-03-07T15:19:00.003-05:00

To answer the question from yesterday's blog; why would anyone in America want to see this happen? The reason for every other evil in the world, money and power. There are a very large group of 'intellectuals' in America that believe they see the 'handwriting on the wall'. A global economy is now in place, global education is on its way......all to usher in a global government...or one world government.

When our economy crashes, jobs are gone, and everyone is scrambling looking for sustenance and can't find it, where will they go? Ahhh...the gold ol' government. The government will be waiting with open arms, "we will take care of you. We told you those evil corporations would turn their backs on you all in the name of filling their wallets." Of course, not bringing to light that they are the ones who caused the big mess by signing this treaty (See previous blogs on global warming). They will pledge, "we will take care of you. We will make sure that we raise taxes and distribute money, clothing, food, housing evenly to save our country from this great depression." And who will benefit? Those who have Socialist ideals, those who are in the government this very day ready to sign that treaty. I believe they will go as far as frightening citizens to believe America is so broke we will need to sign other treaties and come under the authority of the United Nations or the European Union (i.e. One World Government) to help provide us with protection, food etc. that we can no longer afford ourselves.

And to think very few people are aware of this little insignificant treaty on global warming.

If you are still skeptical, there have been meetings at Michigan State University advertised in the Lansing Street Journal to discuss in a positive light; Antonio Gramsci who is a socialist that many of the 'intellectuals' love. They would like to model his philosophies on socialist government. Just google 'Antonio Gramsci, Socialism, America' and see what you find. Or...search 'Socialism, America, Kyoto Protocol'. You will be very informed.

Global Warming and the Demise of America

2008-03-06T09:47:00.000-05:00

I’ll bet that got your attention. If not yours I am sure I have just been red flagged by every secret homeland security agency in America. Well at least someone is reading my blog. Relax secret agents I am a stay-at-home mom with a little knowledge.

OK, I am going to attempt to take a coconut shell called the Kyoto Protocol (Global Warming Treaty) and condense it into a pistachio shell. The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty that was agreed to by Al Gore in 1997 and signed in New York in 1998 to reduce our gas emissions i.e. air pollutants to seven percent below our 1990 levels. However, for the treaty to be effective it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. This has not yet happened, although the prognosis for such an outcome is much more likely since power changed hands last year. Side note: Presidential campaigners Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton support the Kyoto Protocol.

Sounds boring, why do I care? Three reasons: your job, your national sovereignty and China. How could something as simple as a global warming treaty cause this much damage? President Bush estimates that we will lose 5,000,000 jobs in America alone. Yes, all in the name of mother earth. I just hope that if they ratify the treaty it will be effective in making the earth healthier. I would need the nutrients in the grass and tree bark to feed my children since we wouldn’t be able to afford groceries. Cutting emissions is not cheap and companies will look for alternative solutions that won’t impact their wallets.

China. Where do you think all of our American jobs would go? Corporations are not ‘goodwill outfits’; they are ‘for profit’ companies. The details of the treaty specify ‘developing nations’ will not be subject to the same emissions requirements (sounds like a Socialist philosophy). Guess who is considered a developing nation? Yes, red, communist China. Here are a few fast facts on China. They are public enemy #2 of gas emissions in the world (even though they are still ‘developing’). They are vast becoming a world super power. Many companies are already moving there without the Kyoto treaty in place because of cheap labor. China has already threatened to liquidate its holding of US treasuries which would trigger a dollar crash (also called their ‘Nuclear Option’) if America does not ease up on threatened trade sanctions. Anyone ready to turn the television on the Chinese channel (yes, they have their own dedicated channel on Dish Network), watch Nick televisions Ni Hao Kai-Lan, enroll your student in the new Chinese Immersion Programs popping up for preschoolers everywhere? Still wondering what the new fascination is with China?

National Sovereignty. If we ratify this treaty America will be subject to International Law. The ‘law of the land’ will begin to erode and we will see the vast demise of America, as we know it. Global warming is a scam.

If you believe this is a little too far fetched and wonder why anyone would want to do this to our Country…. see tomorrow’s blog.

2008 International Conference on Climate Change

2008-03-04T13:58:00.000-05:00

Welcome to Michigan Al Gore

I have to admit, I am a nature lover. My parents live on a river and own a pontoon. When we go on boat rides in the summer we see some of the most beautiful scenery that most people don’t even know exists in the city I live in. Then we get to the old GM plant that is now abandoned. When it was in use the water by the plant smelled horrible. My son, then four years old would say, “Can we go and see the nasty water?” He was into grossing me out (still is). It was yellowish green and thick. It was absolutely disgusting. It was not this way through the majority of the river we traveled, but nonetheless, even the water by my parent’s house, well, I wouldn’t swim in it. So, yes, there is a big part of me that says…. be green! However, global warming and carbon foot printing is a whole different ball game.

Al Gore, come on up to Michigan and try to tell us that it is too hot. You would have an angry mob on your hands. And I would say based on the potential lawsuit that is heading your way…. I’m not alone in my skepticism of global warming.

How many of you in the past couple of weeks have heard about the 2008 International Conference on Climate change taking place on March 3 in New York? Didn’t think so. Did your local and national news channels give any coverage to this major event? Did they give parallel coverage on those who actually don’t believe the earth is heading for a ‘Day After Tomorrow’ scenario? Well, let me fill you in.

John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982 along with 200 world experts on climate change are gathering to refute Al Gore’s theory on Global Warming. And remember…it is just a theory, like evolution, which, like evolution is going to be required to be taught in schools someday…but I digress. They are also going as far as to potentially file a lawsuit. We have just had one of the coldest years on record in the past hundred years; many weather experts and scientists are now looking into the theory that the world is actually cooling and not warming (if you live in Michigan you will definitely agree with this theory). And if Al Gore & Co. is selling carbon footprints to people based on the belief that people are contributing to the so-called heatwave we are having, then he could be guilty of economic fraud.

One of the greatest things that could come out of this lawsuit is that they will put global warming on trial and then we will see the debate between the two sides unfold. Can’t wait. If you would like information on this event go to:

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm