Ford Agrees To Make Some Changes

I’ve been covering the boycott of Ford for some time. I thoroughly agree with the idea of voicing your opinion with your pocketbook. (Pocketbook? Who says “pocketbook” these days?)

In the case of Ford, they’ve been intentionally promoting themselves to homosexual groups. Putting an article in People magazine is one thing; sponsoring a gay pride parade is quite another.

Anyway, with Ford’s plummeting sales the company’s leadership has decided to take a new tact. After their amazing decline:

During the 24 months the boycott was in effect, Ford sales dropped an average of 8% per month.

…it seems Ford is having a change of heart.

Undercover Investigation Shows Racism at Planned Parenthood

All I can say is, “Wow.”

Actor: …I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids.
Planned Parenthood: Yes, absolutely.
Actor: And we don’t, you know, we just think the less black kids out there the better.
Planned Parenthood: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable… This is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.

That’s just scary. We live in a culture of death.

Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation

Planned Parenthood Preys on the Innocent

I wonder how many movements in our young country have started out noble only to decay into negative forces?

I’m not sure that Planned Parenthood was ever a noble endeavor but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Today? Certainly not.

As if parents did not have enough to contend with in protecting their children from the evils for pornography, they now have to face government-funded projects. Unfortunately, that’s the “net” effect of Planned Parenthood’s online venture, teenwire.com. The site, which is so offensive that FRC’s Internet filter blocked it, was supposedly created as a resource for kids seeking “medically accurate” information.

My filter blocks it too.

According to the nation’s biggest abortion merchant, that information now includes normalizing pornography. Although Planned Parenthood is careful to state that it’s illegal to ply children under 18 with sexually explicit images, that doesn’t stop its “advice columnists” from telling kids that “many people use pornography as part of sex play.” On the “Ask the Experts” page, one young visitor says, “I look at porno sites… but people say looking at those sites affects your school work… Should I stop it? If I should, how?” An “expert” responds, “There is no correlation between using pornography and getting bad grades in school.” Among other things, kids are encouraged to play games about issues from bisexuality to birth control. Another page gives teens the lowdown on having an abortion without their parents’ consent. To teens struggling with homosexuality, Planned Parenthood says, “Having sex with girls and boys is normal and healthy.” With over $300 million in taxpayer funds, the organization has the U.S. government to thank for helping to promote these messages.

Unbelievable. I post this for one big reason. Organizations like Planned Parenthood prey on the young and most helpless people in our society: unborn babies and underage kids. It’s horrible and their actions should be brought to the light of day.

Contact your leaders and urge them to support Rep. Mike Pence and Sen. David Vitter’s bills to zero out funding for groups like Planned Parenthood.

The FRC does good work on behalf of our nation’s families. I recommend them highly.

NEA Promotes Homosexuality as ‘Normal’ to Children

So often lately, I wonder how we got to this point.

A joint project by the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Psychological Association (APA) is giving parents 16,000 new reasons to question the agenda of national teachers’ union leaders. The NEA and APA have partnered to produce a booklet titled, “Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth,” which they plan to distribute to every superintendent in America’s 16,000 school districts. Among the so-called “facts” in the 24-page document is the opinion, that homosexuality is “a normal expression of human sexuality.”

There’s no scientific proof of this yet these two organizations opt to follow political agendas rather than their own mission-stated goals. Nothing about statistics that show those in the homosexual lifestyle are more likely to commit suicide.

The booklet also warns teachers not to discuss “transformational ministries” that suggest homosexuality is a condition that can be changed. Religious-based views are regarded as harmful, if not dangerous.

The NEA is one of the more liberal organizations in the country and their anti-religion stance is hardly surprising. But to come right out and publish it? That’s hubris!

This is no surprise to those who have followed the leftward drift of the NEA leadership. For years, the organization has used teachers’ dues to subsidize its top officials’ left-wing fanaticism, which includes everything from promoting homosexuality and abortion in schools to pushing birth control. The APA is no better. In the past few decades, the group has gone from listing homosexuality as a mental disorder to becoming one of its biggest champions in the public square.

Talk about flip-flop. Amazing.

Now both groups are using their influence to transform public schools into incubators for their radical social agendas. These lessons in political correctness must stop! Log on to www.frc.org and download the real facts about “Homosexuality in Your Child’s School.”

I sincerely hope that parents everywhere understand what their schools are teaching their children. Unfortunately, many parents aren’t as involved in their kids’ lives as they could be. Don’t let that be you.

APHA Sells Our Health for Politics

Yet another organization to fall by the wayside of politics of money and power.

Straying from its mission to “protect all Americans… from… serious health threats,” the American Public Health Association (APHA) is throwing its weight behind a list of radical pro-abortion policies, including a repeal of the partial-birth abortion ban. The announcement came after APHA’s Governing Council met last year to determine its position on a wide range of “health initiatives” that included everything from promoting global warming awareness to opposing a U.S. attack on Iran. Although the organization has existed for 136 years and receives a healthy sum of taxpayer dollars, this latest declaration is further proof that APHA’s leadership is more interested in raw political advocacy than advances in public health. [link]

After all the data stating otherwise, they have the audacity to come out and publicly support partial-birth abortions and say it’s perfectly healthy?!? Unbelievable.

Less Government Means Greater Opportunity for Economic Growth

In an email piece called, “What Does the “Stimulus” Package Mean for You?” the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) spells out what they had wished the government had done instead of merely recycling money.

NTU led a coalition of 25 groups across the country that told lawmakers in a recent ad, “If Congress seeks true stimulus that is economically sound, it ought to reduce tax rates and avoid bailing out the housing market. Making the lower capital gains tax rate permanent and reducing inordinately high corporate taxes would have a much more stimulative effect than any rearrangement of existing tax revenue.”

While the stimulus package is better than doing nothing at all, our economy will only grow on its own when government quits taking so much of the wage earners income.

Keep this in mind as you contemplate your vote in the upcoming election.

Another Clinton Scandal, This Time Hillary in Front

Yep. They’re at it again. Watch this 13 minute clip that documents Hillary’s fund-raising tactics using then betraying donor Peter Paul.

Of course, the most practically all of the media is covering up for the Clintons.

Roe v Wade IQ Test

Have you taken the Roe IQ test? I did. They said:

You got 9 out of the 12 questions correct for a 75%.

That result puts you in the 78th percentile when compared to everyone who has taken the test.

One I missed, where I over-estimated the total numbers. It’s only 40-49 million babies since 1973, or 1.28 million a year. I also guessed that abortions due to rape or incest was 2%-5% but the answer was under 1%. I also guessed the wrong Supreme Court justice naming Scalia instead of Ginsburg.

I haven’t posted about this in some time, so it’s likely a good idea for my newer readers to see the most compelling argument supporting life that I’ve ever heard. Spread the word.

Unborn vs. Newborn: Which is Human?

[Adapted from Reaching Hearts and Minds on Abortion by Scott Klusendorf a professor of Bioethics. The SLED acronym was developed by Stephen Schwarz in The Moral Question of Abortion (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990) pp. 17-18.]

After some preliminary discussions…

Pro-Life: “Do you think that newborns are persons?”

Pro-Choice: “Yes, of course. Everyone does.”

Pro-Life: “What are the differences between fetuses and newborns?”

Pro-Choice: “There are many, important differences.”

Pro-Life: “If we look at those differences to see if they are morally relevant then we can answer the question if it’s morally permissible to kill fetuses and not kill newborns.”

Pro-Choice: “Sounds reasonable.”

Pro-Life: “As it turns out, unborns differ from the newborns in just four ways which I pose are not relevant to its status as a human being. Those four ways are Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency. The acronym SLED is a helpful reminder of those differences.”

• Size: “The unborn are smaller than the newly born. But does size have a correlation to human rights? Men are generally larger than women, does that mean they deserve more rights? Is Shaquel O’Neal more of a person than Hillary Clinton simply because he is larger? Clearly size is not an criteria for determining whether something is a person.”
• Level of development: “True, the unborn are less developed than newborns, but this too is morally irrelevant when it comes to assessing humanhood. A newborn is less developed than a toddler. A toddler is less developed than an adolescent. An adolescent is less developed than an adult. But all are considered equally human.”

  Is a child of four, for example, less of a person because she has not yet developed her sexual organs? Is a retarded child whose brain function is less than his classmate still not equally human? These absurd conclusions follow from defining persons based on what they can do rather than what they are.

  If you follow that line of thinking, we’re creating newer robots that can behave like people. Are they considered persons? If personhood is only a developing, gradual thing, then we are never fully human because we continue to grow intellectually and emotionally. As Albert Schweitzer said at age 70, ‘I still don’t know what I want to do when I grow up.’

  It follows, then, that the ability to perform human functions is not a necessary condition for human personhood. People who are unconscious do not have the present capacity to perform personal acts. We don’t kill them because of it. Nor should we kill the unborn.

• Environment: “True, the unborn is located in a different place, but how does a change in location suddenly change a non-human entity into a human one? Did you stop being human when you walked from your house to the car? From the kitchen to the den? Clearly, where one is has no bearing on who one is.”

  A child in the incubator of her mother’s womb is no less a child than the one being sustained by neonatal technology. I know, for example, of a baby girl named Rachel who was born at 24 weeks gestation. At the time of her birth, she weighed less than a pound and could fit into the palm of your hand. The hospital staff worked heroically to save her life and now she is a healthy toddler.

  But let’s assume that instead of saving baby Rachel’s life at 24 weeks, the doctor came into her room and killed her while she was resting in her father’s hand. We would consider that an outrage, wouldn’t we? But do you know that the same baby can be killed through legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy simply because she is located six inches away in her mother’s womb?

  Ladies and gentlemen, you do not stop being human simply because you have a different address.

• Degree of dependency: “If viability is what makes one human, then all those dependent on kidney machines, heart pace-makers, and insulin would have to be declared non-persons. There is no ethical difference between an unborn child who is plugged into and dependent upon its mother and a kidney patient who is plugged into and dependent upon a kidney machine.”

  Siamese twins do not forfeit their right to live simply because they depend on each others’ circulatory systems.

  We can take this a step further. Imagine that you are stranded in the woods one freezing night in January, but you have plenty of warm clothing. While searching for help, you encounter a lost toddler wearing shorts and a t-shirt.

  Scantily dressed, he will freeze to death within the hour if no one helps him. Realizing this child depends totally on you for his survival, you promptly excuse yourself from having any moral obligation to him. In fact, you go one step further. You feed him to the wolves because, after all, he cannot survive without you. Obviously, you wouldn’t do that. Neither would any abortion advocate I know.

  In fact, the most strident defender of abortion would do exactly as you or I would do in that situation: She would pick the child up and wrap him inside her own jacket, using her own body to sustain him. She would remain with him all night if need be, despite inconvenience or hardship until he was delivered safely to his parents. She would protect the child precisely because he depends solely on her for survival. It would not matter that he was an unwanted intruder or an uninvited guest.

  And yet when it comes to the woman’s own unborn offspring, the moral logic of abortion advocates is that she has no responsibility to the child precisely because it depends on her for protection. In other words, he can be legally killed because of his need. This is absurd.

Pro-Life: “We can see, then, that the unborn child differs from a newborn child in only four ways—size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency—and none of those differences are good reasons for disqualifying it as fully human.”

Pro-Choice: “You know, I’ve been listening to you pro-lifers for 30 years. I’ve had people shove rosary beads at me, tell me I was going to burn in hell, and even had evangelicals praying for my soul. But this is the first time I have ever heard one of you right-to-lifers explain why you believe what you believe. I guess I will have to give it some thought.”

Election 2008 Voter Guide from the Family Research Center

Not all candidates are created equal. Since we can’t immediately remove them from office (or kill them) when they go back on their campaign promises, we’re left to consider their stated positions prior to the election.

I have little problem with those who sincerely believe their views line up with a candidate whom I personally dislike. On the other hand, it’s enormously naive and stated frankly, lazy, to strickly vote the party line or worse even still, to vote from someone because you like the way they speak or their appearance.

Americans are fighting and dying abroad on our behalf, so that we have the freedom to vote for our government. The least we could do is spend some time investigating the candidates.

Abortion Case to Appear Before China High Court

China has a horrendous track record in the realm of human rights. In fact, they’ve crossed the boundary into megalomania. But now there appears to possible be a crack in their great wall. For the first time, the country’s highest court has agreed to hear a woman’s case that contains the following, grisly details.

Jin Yani, who violated Chinese law by becoming pregnant five months before she wed, was ready to deliver her baby when family planning officials appeared at the couple’s door. They escorted her to a local abortion center, where her unborn child was given a lethal injection and later removed from the womb. Jin lost so much blood as a result of the procedure that she was hospitalized for six weeks and, in the seven years since, has been unable to conceive.

It’s reprehensible what the Chinese government has done to literally millions of their own citizens. Someday, judgment will come to those responsible. But for now, I would welcome a bit of reason amongst the irrational mandates.

Hillary Is Too Scary For Words

Hillary 1984

If they had found some other footage, this could have been even more frightening.

Military Families Interact With Loved Ones Abroad

I love that while technology can certainly be perverted towards evil means, it can also do some incredible things. At this time of year, I can’t think of a better use for video conferencing. When some people complain about military spending, remember that items like these are also part of the package.

Anti-Religion Crowd Whines About Cross

Before I had watched Huckabee’s commercial, I assumed that there was a real cross that was sitting on a shelf in in the bookcase behind him. Now I learn that what the loons are crying about is actually just the wood of bookshelf itself.

But there’s no problem when Madonna wears a big cross around her neck as she dances half-naked across the stage. Right.

Obvious Anti-Christian Sentiment in Congress

What do the following Congressmen have in common?

Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)
Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.)
Diana DeGette (D-Co.)
Alcee Hastings (D-Fl.)
Jim McDermott (D-Wash.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Fortney Stark (D-Calif.)
Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.)
Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
Rush Holt (D-N.J.)
Donald Payne (D-N.J.)
Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl.)
Peter Welch (D-Vt.)
John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)

They all voted “No” to a bill “recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith” (H.R. 847) while voting “Yes” to H.R. 635 which “commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commended Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith.”

It’s astounding that they would vote this way on a surface bill like this one. Yes, our very own Yarmuth is one of the Scrooges.

The Truth about Taxes

This has made the rounds but maybe you haven’t seen it. Those who disregard apparently have a significant problem with logic.

The Truth about Taxes
by Kenneth Wangler

Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
The sixth would pay $3;
The seventh $7;
The eighth $12;
The ninth $18;
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement-until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.”

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six—the paying customers?

How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

The first four men still paid nothing;
The fifth would now also pay nothing;
The sixth would now pay $2;
The seventh would now pay $5;
The eighth would now pay $9;
The ninth would now pay $12;
The tenth would now pay $52.

Each of the six was better off than before. And now the first five would eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man.

“Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Unfortunately, Liberals cannot grasp this straight-forward logic!