Archive for October, 2008

Oct
30

Infanticide does exist and thank God the group Students for Life of America has the nerve to do the underground research required to prove it. This video is of a Planned Parenthood employee in New Jersey admitting that sometimes babies are born alive during a late term abortion and that they are left to die.

Barack Obama pledged his unyielding support for Planned Parenthood as well as voted against the Born Alive Infant Protect Act while he was an Illinois state senator. It’s also important to note that Planned Parenthood received taxpayer money. When the Democrats insist on subsidizing Planned Parenthood, they are essentially making taxpayers unknowingly complicit in this infanticide, something that the majority of American taxpayers would most certainly find objectionable and sickening.

Here’s the most disturbing quote from the video:

“They wouldn’t be able to live on its own. So, eventually, the baby does die.”

How can this woman work for this organization and live with herself? How does she go home at the end of the day and act as if nothing happened? Does she or anyone else who works for this organization have a soul?

Hat tip: Hot Air

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or subcribe via email. Thanks for stopping by!

Oct
27

I received an email last night from a fellow blogger that had a subject line of “Bombshell!” Normally when I get these kinds of emails that talk of bombshells, especially this close to a presidential election, I am skeptical.

This time, however, that email really was a bombshell. It’s audio of a 2001 radio interview that Barack Obama did for Chicago Public Radio and in this interview he made some really scary comments on the redistribution of wealth and other forms of redistributive change, as he called it,  and how they apply to the civil rights movement in the 1960’s. Take a listen to what Obama said:

Steve Schippert, one of my fellow bloggers at Wizbang, wrote a post there where he said this:

For Obama, the redistribution of wealth is a civil right that the civil rights movement failed to attain. To Barack Obama, the redistribution of wealth is basic “political and economic justice,” and one segment of society has the basic right to the money of other segments of society. He’s very straight forward about this.

And while in the interview he did not think wealth redistribution could be affected through the courts, he was confident that it could be attained “legislatively.” The reason the courts have not legislated this from the bench is that it requires the court to interpret the Constitution in a manner that is wholly in conflict with the document – and its intentions – as written.

The prospects of an Obama presidency and a large democrat majority that leans far left in both the House and the Senate will set the stage for “legislative” imposition of the transfer of wealth to those who he views have a civil right to that money.

That this is wholly counter to the Constitution is of no matter. Congress will pass ‘transformational’ tax and health care legislation, Obama will sign it into Law, and the only thing standing between it and us is the Supreme Court, which could strike down the laws as un-Constitutional. But what will that Supreme Court look like after one or two Obama appointments? Will it have the will to do so, or will enough justices ‘interpret’ (‘invent’ is a more appropriate term) the Constitution in the manner Obama does?

Please don’t think that just because you don’t consider yourself rich that you won’t be subject to having some of your wealth redistributed to others who Obama thinks are more deserving. The definition of rich is totally subjective, and in order to fund the redistributionist policies he proposes, Obama is going to have to raise taxes on more than just the top 5%.

Regarding the Supreme Court, thankfully, none of the justices of the US Supreme Court who are set to retire soon are strict constructionists, so, if Barack Obama wins, and he has to nominate a couple of justices, he will be replacing one liberal justice with another liberal justice and the court’s structure won’t change.

This audio is very important because it confirms Obama’s “spread the wealth” comments that he said to Joe the Plumber. It’s obvious they weren’t just off the cuff. It’s clear that Barack Obama has believed in spreading other people’s wealth to people who didn’t earn it for quite a while.

Oct
23

A few days ago, I got an email from the McCain/Palin campaign asking if there were any other Joe the Plumbers out there who were working hard to reach the American Dream. If so, the McCain campaign encouraged them to send in videos telling their “Joe the Plumber” stories.

We want you to tell us how you are “Joe the Plumber” and why you’re supporting John McCain and Sarah Palin in thirty seconds. You could even see your video as an official McCain TV ad.

This web ad appears to be the result of that email request. Take a look:

I love it. Are you Joe the Plumber? If so, go to I’m Joe the Plumber and tell your story.

Oct
23

If House Democrats have their way, the 401(k) system that currently includes tax breaks will be eliminated:

Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.

At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.

Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation. (Emphasis mine)

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America folks. This is what you’ll be looking at if Barack Obama becomes president. And if you think they’re going to stop there, you’re being hopelessly naive.

Hat tip: Tom Elia at The New Editor

Update: James Pethokoukis at US News and World Report has more detail on the consequences this kind of action would have on Americans’ retirement. But first he ponders this:

I hate to use the “S” word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right? This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers’ retirement accounts (Efharisto, Fausta’s Blog). Now, even Uncle Sam isn’t that stupid, but some Democrats might try something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.

And the consequences of such an action:

4) Ghilarducci would offer a lousy 3 percent return. The long-run return of the stock market, adjusted for inflation, is more like 7 percent. Look at it this way: Ten thousand dollars growing at 3 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with roughly $22,000. But $10,000 growing at 7 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with $150,000. That is a high price to pay for what Ghilarducci describes as the removal of “a source of financial anxiety and…fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets.” Please, I’ll take a bit of worry for an additional $128,000.

5) What effect would this plan have on an already battered stock market? Well, I would imagine it would send it even lower, sticking a shiv into the portfolios of everyone who didn’t jump aboard. But I am sure the Chinese would love to jump in and buy all our cheap stocks to fund the retirement of their citizens.

Oct
23

You must read Andy McCarthy’s piece at National Review. He writes about Obama’s most recent communist eruption. Of course you won’t hear anything about Obama’s association with Michael Klonsky, a committed communist, anywhere in the mainstream media. Here’s a portion:

Here’s what you need to know. Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website…

Klonsky’s communist pedigree could not be clearer. His father, Robert Klonsky, was an American communist who was convicted in the mid-Fifties for advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government — a violation of the Smith Act, anti-communist legislation ultimately gutted by the Supreme Court. In the Sixties, Klonsky the younger teamed with Ayers, Dohrn, and other young radicals to form the Students for a Democratic Society. It was out of the SDS that Ayers and Dohrn helped found the Weatherman terrorist group.

Klonsky took a different path, albeit one that led inexorably to a new partnership with Ayers, which Obama mightily helped underwrite. Upon splitting off from the SDS, Klonsky formed a Maoist organization, first known as the “October League,” which ultimately became the “Communist Party (Marxist Leninist).”

Klonsky was CP(ML)’s chairman. He was so highly thought of by Mao’s regime that he was among the first Americans invited to visit Communist China. When he was feted there in 1977, a year after Mao’s death, the communist leadership hailed Klonsky’s party as “reflecting the aspirations of the proletariat and working people.”

Klonsky was a regular guest of the Chicoms until 1981, when the relationship soured over the post-Mao leadership’s free-market reforms. (Yes, Klonsky is apparently more committed to communism than China’s own Communist Party.) So what was a Leftist radical without platform to do? Why, what else? He became an American college professor specializing in education.

Read all of it. If you care about America at all, it will terrify you that Barack Obama could win the election, which would mean Klonsky and Ayers would have a friend in the White House. Afterall, they had a friend in Obama who served on the various boards with Ayers. Obama, as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Joyce and the Woods Foundations, awarded Klonsky and Ayers’ Small School Workshop almost $2 million in grants for the purpose of indoctrinating children with communist propaganda.

Oct
20

If you missed the Republican National Convention in early September, you missed Fred Thompson’s goosebump-making speech about John McCain’s military service. It’s truly inspiring. Freedom’s Lighthouse published it today. It’s worth the time to watch it and remind ourselves the sacrifice Senator McCain made for his country.

Oct
17

I saw the Alfred E. Smith Foundation Dinner last night and John McCain had me laughing out loud during his entire speech. This dinner is a chance for the presidential candidates to deliver some stand up comedy. As much as Barack Obama tried,  he just doesn’t have a lot of comedic timing whereas John McCain does. Check it out.

Oct
16

I usually don’t watch MSNBC because as a news organization their reporting is so far left that I can’t get anything useful out of their reports. This report is an exception. Take a look at this moving report about Sarah Palin and how she inspires parents of other special needs children:

Oct
12

This is only a small portion of her entire speech but it’s wonderful to see. Sarah Palin takes Obama to task for his stance on unlimited abortions. Watch:

I hope she continues to hammer Obama on the issue of abortion and her personal story because it’s compelling. She’s a living example of the sanctity of life.

Here’s the entire text of her speech. Read it.

“In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?

When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.

Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.

As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.

It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.

I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.

Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.

Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.

In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.

Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.

In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”

In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.

But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.

For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.

He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.”

Oct
12

Please watch this set of videos at Never Find Out created by Let Freedom Ring. I haven’t seen any of them on television, but I don’t watch any of the broadcast stations. If they haven’t been broadcast on television, they should be.

Once you watch them, pass them on.

About me

NewTwitterTurnberry 003_2

I am a conservative. I believe in the greatness of America. I also believe that she is this world's last best hope for freedom, liberty, individualism, and self-reliance.

Subscribe

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blogroll

Follow My Blog