Davids MyPlace at Blogspot

Cash for Clunkers

2009-09-07T17:06:00.000-07:00

Wondering who gets to pay all those $4,500.00 cash for clunker deals. Let me look at my check stub again. Worse yet, let me look at my granddaughter's future check stubs.

KY Senate Bill 68

2009-03-07T10:03:00.001-08:00

KY Senate Bill 68

KY Senate Bill 68 will allow children to be fostered or adopted by only married couples.
The KY Fairness Alliance says this targets the gay and lesbian community.

The research shows this targets what is good for the children and not straight or gay “communities.”
It appears the gay and lesbian communities are once again looking at what is “fair” or what is “good” for them, with little or no interest or concern for what is fair, or good for the children.

Just because someone thinks working a meth lab is an okay thing to do, does not mean including children in that environment is the best thing for them.

I know having perverse sexual encounters is not the same thing as brewing meth, however it is no better having children in either environment than the other.

I have heard others argue that it is better to have children in a gay home than on the streets, and I say it is better to eat steak than cow dung; so as long as there is a better place to put children, such as with married couples, I say do it.

If we come to the place where we no longer have married couples homes to put children in then we have already gone to hell in a hand basket, and we might as well hang it up.

I don't believe it is time to hang it up.

P.S. I would love to have foster children and have thought of adopting a child, however, I am not married, and so I fall in the same category as those not eligible to foster or adopt.

I say to the KY “Fairness Alliance” quit being so selfish and self centered.

Ethics

2009-02-07T18:38:00.000-08:00

I was watching a couple of anchor women on TV talking about ethics. The ethics of what other people should do, or shouldn’t do. The ethics of a woman having too many babies, and of some other current events. These are some of the same women in the media whom I have noticed have a pro-choice, a pro-abortion bent.
Listening to them speak about ethics, I couldn’t help but find it similar to what I would expect it would be like attending an ethics class taught by Hitler.
I couldn’t help but find it interesting to see people who purport abortion, the killing of little babies as an okay thing to do, to be trying to discuss and tell the world what is ethical, and what is not.

Dripping of Blood.

2009-01-25T08:53:00.000-08:00

Dripping of Blood

One of Hussein Obama's first order of business in his first week in office as President of the United States was to sign an executive order expanding the assistance of killing babies overseas. I can just see the blood dripping from his pen as he draws it across the paper. Some of the same blood that was dripping from the buttons with his name in the voting booths this past November.

Gaza, What I see and Hear

2009-01-18T11:35:00.000-08:00

Gaza, What I see and Hear

I hear the Israelis demanding Hamas stop firing missiles.
I see Hamas continue to fire missiles in to Israel.
I hear calls for Israel to cease fire and to stop fighting Hamas.
I hear complaints that the Palestinians have no place safe to go.
I hear Hamas complain Israel is hitting civilian areas and causing civilian deaths.
I see Hamas fire rockets from civilian streets and populations.
I see Hamas set up and fire at Israelis from the midst of civilians.
I see Israel do what it can to limit civilian casualties.
I see Hamas appear to maximize civilian casualties on both sides of the boarder.
I hear Hamas demand Israel leave Gaza.
I see Hamas repeatedly invite Israel back over with fire in to Israel.
I see the Palestinians vote in a government that demands they stand in front of their solders in an attempt for their solders to hide behind them, and then complain when it all works out just like they plan it with their women and children dieing in front of them.

Both Hamas and Israel want Israel out of Gaza as neither want Israel to be there.
Only Israel wants Hamas to stop firing rockets in to Israel.
Time will show Hamas has no desire to stop firing rockets in to Israel, except maybe for a short time to get an opportunity to regroup and rearm.

I see the UN and the Arab communities demand a stop to the violence. Mostly I see the Arab communities demand Israel stop their violence.

I see little or nothing suggest Hamas stop firing rockets in to Israel except for Israel.

Where does it make since for Israel to pull back across the boarder if only to receive more rockets.

Hamas/Israel

2009-01-01T07:09:00.000-08:00

I find it interesting as I have observed Hamas send rockets over in to Israel weekly if not daily over the last year, and when Israel sends rockets back over in to Gaza, not only do the Palestinians scream and yell how awful that is, but they somehow manage to even be surprised that it happens.
It is really difficult for me to imagine a people being that stupid.
I really don't think either people have a complaint about the other shooting at them as long as they are shooting at the other.

Ronald McDonald comes out of the closet.

2008-03-30T10:28:00.000-07:00

Why is it no longer considered perverse to inundate our little ones with sexual innuendos or outright sex? It appears the Gays believe they have as much right to your children as you do. They have made big headway in our schools and now McDonalds. Now as your children go sit in Ronald’s lap, you got to wonder. Has the world truly gone from protecting our children to turning them over to perverts? Has it gone from being essential to keeping sexual degenerates away from our children to being considered a prude to do so, and now just saying, “It’s a sign of the times,” and just letting it go as if there is nothing that can be done about it.
It seems we have no idea that it starts out with who we elect as our “representatives.” And I mean the ones who appoint our judges, as well as the judges who get elected. You see, it does matter what their personal business is and what they do away from the office, because in the long run, and the short run, it affects what the do in office.
Must we continue to support these kind of agendas.
I don’t care if you are gay, Gay Rights, does NOT include the right to pervert our children.

You really must stand up people, and protect your children! Pay attention to the values of who you vote for.
Also now looks like you must pay attention to where you eat and where you shop.
It does matter.

Now your children can go sit in Ronald’s lap too. After all, he does have a big smile for them.

MONEYNETDAILY
McDonald's signs
onto 'gay' agenda
Family restaurant puts executive
on board of homosexual chamber

Posted: March 30, 2008
12:20 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Following the link from the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce's website leads to a promotional for children's Happy Meals at the McDonalds website
McDonald's restaurant's, famed for the Golden Arches, Ronald McDonald and kids meals, has signed onto a nationwide effort to promote "gay" and "lesbian" business ventures.
The company, which is listed on the website of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce as a "corporate partner and organization ally" for an undisclosed financial contribution, also recently placed one of its executives on the NGLCC board of directors.
Earlier this month, the chamber confirmed that Richard Ellis, vice president of communications of McDonald's USA, was elected to the special interest chamber board.
"We could not be more delighted with the addition of Richard to the Board," said NGLCC co-founder Justin Nelson. "Richard brings his extensive experience in communications and public affairs to a dynamic team of leaders."
Said Ellis: "I'm thrilled to join the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce team and ready to get to work. I share the NGLCC's passion for business growth and development within the LGBT community and I look forward to playing a role in moving these important initiatives forward."

Before Ellis joined McDonald's USA, he held the position of vice president of communications and public affairs for McDonald's in Canada and earlier he was with Weber Shandwick Worldwide (Canada) Inc.
"In addition to being on NGLCC's board of directors, Ellis is an active member of the board of directors of the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, vice president of the board of directors of the Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research (CANFAR) and an accredited member of the Canadian Public Relations Society ( CPRS) and the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC)," the NGLCC announcement said.
"Richard's vast board experience with LGBT and advocacy related organizations make him an excellent addition to the board," said Chance Mitchell, NGLCC chief executive officer. "Richard is going to be a terrific director and we look forward to working with him towards great things."
McDonald's officials declined today to return a WND call seeking a comment on the placement of its executive on the "gay" advocacy organization, but did send a subsequent e-mail confirming the corporation's support for the agenda of the homosexual business lobby.
"McDonald's is indeed a Corporate Partner and Organizational Ally of NGLCC. Our vice president of U.S. communications, Richard Ellis, was recently elected to its board of directors," said the brief statement from Heidi M. Barker, senior director of media relations, to WND.
A spokeswoman for NGLCC refused to speak with WND except on "background" when asked about McDonald's financial contribution to the group. But she did confirm the organization would not release information on its sponsors.
The McDonald's logo is featured on the website of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, among other well-known companies
WND reported earlier when Wal-Mart joined the NGLCC, and how the corporation's income later started declining as Christian organizations reacted to the news.
CNN reported that Wal-Mart officials later decided to pursue a lower level of homosexual promotions.
"We are not currently planning corporate-level contributions to GLBT groups," Mona Williams, the company's senior vice president of corporate communications, told CNN only months after the issues arose.
The chamber group describes itself as promoting the LGBT community first and always.
Under a "What we do" page is listed a variety of goals, including "disseminate news and information central to the success of LGBT businesses, … ensure increased opportunity and equality for LGBT professionals, … help LBGT businesses gain more procurement opportunities, …. provide strong lobbying efforts for LBGT business causes."
And it gives credit to sponsors such as McDonald's for its financial and other support for helping in its work.
"Through the commitment of our corporate partners, the NGLCC has been able to advance the ideas and causes of the LGBT business community," the chamber said at the top of its list of sponsors.
McDonald's describes itself as "socially responsible."
In remarks on its website attributed to "Jim," McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner, include, "Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world … and we do."
It also boasts: "McDonald's is the world's community restaurant. We are proud of our long-standing commitment to a workforce that is diverse. We believe in developing and maintaining a diverse workforce that will strengthen the McDonald's system. Diversity at McDonald's is understanding, recognizing and valuing the differences that make each person unique."
Christian groups had protested Wal-Mart support for homosexual issues
Other corporate sponsors of the NGLCC include expected names such as Coors Light and Kodak, who have been leaders in advocating homosexuality, as well as IBM, Wells Fargo, JPMorganChase, Motorola, Intel, Avis, Pepsico, OfficeMax, Coldwell Banker, as well as dozens of others.
When Wal-Mart joined the NGLCC, Rev. Flip Benham, of Operation Save Wal-Mart, launched a series of protests.
Benham reported later that hundreds of Christian families had gathered at Wal-Mart stores across the country to "bring the Gospel of Christ to the very gates of hell."
He said hundreds of thousands of pieces of literature were passed out to customers arriving at Wal-Marts, and "many were astonished to find how deeply Wal-Mart had fallen from its biblical principles."
"The Church came 'out of the closet' to attempt to save an old friend. Wal-Mart, a store built upon biblical principles and under the tutelage of Sam Walton, has become an enemy of God," he said.
American Family Association also had called for a boycott heading into the 2007 Christmas shopping season because of Wal-Mart's decision to join the chamber.

3 in 4 U.S. mosques preach anti-West extremism

2008-02-24T13:38:00.000-08:00

HOMELAND INSECURITY
Study: 3 in 4 U.S. mosques
preach anti-West extremism
Secret survey exposes
widespread radicalism

Posted: February 23, 2008
9:51 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily
An undercover survey of more than 100 mosques and Islamic schools in America has exposed widespread radicalism, including the alarming finding that 3 in 4 Islamic centers are hotbeds of anti-Western extremism, WND has learned.
The Mapping Sharia in America Project, sponsored by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, has trained former counterintelligence and counterterrorism agents from the FBI, CIA and U.S. military, who are skilled in Arabic and Urdu, to conduct undercover reconnaissance at some 2,300 mosques and Islamic centers and schools across the country.
"So far of 100 mapped, 75 should be on a watchlist," an official familiar with the project said.
Many of the Islamic centers are operating under the auspices of the Saudi Arabian government and U.S. front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood based in Egypt.
Frank Gaffney, a former Pentagon official who runs the Center for Security Policy, says the results of the survey have not yet been published. But he confirmed that "the vast majority" are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks.

The project, headed by David Yerushalmi, a lawyer and expert on sharia law, has finished collecting data from the first cohort of 102 mosques and schools. Preliminary findings indicate that almost 80 percent of the group exhibit a high level of sharia-compliance and jihadi threat, including:
· Ultra-orthodox worship in which women are separated from men in the prayer hall and must enter the mosque from a separate, usually back, entrance; and are required to wear hijabs.
· Sermons that preach women are inferior to men and can be beaten for disobedience; that non-Muslims, particularly Jews, are infidels and inferior to Muslims; that jihad or support of jihad is not only a Muslim's duty but the noblest way, and suicide bombers and other so-called "martyrs" are worthy of the highest praise; and that an Islamic caliphate should one day encompass the U.S.
· Solicitation of financial support for jihad.
· Bookstores that sell books, CDs and DVDs promoting jihad and glorifying martyrdom.
Though not all mosques in America are radicalized, many have tended to serve as safe havens and meeting points for Islamic terrorist groups. Experts say there are at least 40 episodes of extremists and terrorists being connected to mosques in the past decade alone.
Some of the 9/11 hijackers, in fact, received aid and counsel from one of the largest mosques in the Washington, D.C., area. Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center is one of the mosques indentified by undercover investigators as a hive of terrorist activity and other extremism.
It was founded and is currently run by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Imams there preach what is called "jihad qital," which means physical jihad, and incite violence and hatred against the U.S.
Dar al-Hijrah's ultimate goal, investigators say, is to turn the U.S. into an Islamic state governed by sharia law.
Another D.C.-area mosque, the ADAMS Center, was founded and financed by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has been one of the top distributors of Wahhabist anti-Semitic and anti-Christian dogma.
Even with such radical mosques operating in its backyard, the U.S. government has not undertaken its own systematic investigation of U.S. mosques.
In contrast, European Union security officials are analyzing member-state mosques, examining the training and funding sources of imams, in a large-scale project.
Some U.S. lawmakers want the U.S. to conduct its own investigation.
"We have too many mosques in this country," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y. "There are too many people who are sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully."

Dad challenging 'manipulation' of kids

2008-02-21T14:35:00.000-08:00

From World Net Dailey.

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Dad challenging 'manipulation' of kids
'Their little minds should not be the battleground for culture wars'

Posted: February 20, 2008
2:53 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
A Massachusetts father who was handcuffed and arrested after objecting to teachers and school managers indoctrinating his 5-year-old son in the homosexual lifestyle will be appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his case because of the "national significance" of the precedent.
"[Unless the case is overturned,] it now would allow teachers in elementary schools to influence children into any views they wanted to, behind the backs of parents, to a captive audience, and against the will of the parents if need be," David Parker told WND.

David Parker and his team of lawyers talk to the press after an earlier court hearing. Left to right: Robert Sinsheimer, Jeffrey Denner, David Parker, Neil Tassel
He and his lawyers, of Denner Pellegrino LLP in Boston, recently confirmed they will be seeking permission to submit the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court, following an appeals court decision that, as Parker described, allows the "indoctrination" of small children.
"The teachers do not have a constitutional right to do that," he told WND. "That, to me, is the crux of this."
He said the ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals essentially concluded that it is no burden on parents' free exercise of religion to have their children taught ideas at a public school that violate the parents' religious teachings.
"They can just teach the children at home," Parker said the court found regarding parents.
"But that ignores the fact that the most basic free exercise is your teaching your children right from wrong in their formative years," he said. "That is completely being undermined by the rulings of these federal courts so far.
"Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right to coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to teach,]" he noted.
"It's not just exposure to an idea, to the [offensive] books, It's the teacher's manipulating the mind of children to embrace dangerous ideologies, because the teacher happens to believe it's a good ideology.
"It brings these battlegrounds to the psyches and minds of little children," Parker said. "Their little minds should not be the battleground for culture wars.
"Proper boundaries have to be established. This is absolutely of national significance. No parent wants to put their very little children in positions in which they're minds are being used as battlegrounds," he said.
"What the pro-homosexual camp has done is positioned so-called 'gay' rights' to completely trump parental rights and parental authority in public schools," he said.
He said such a plan eventually will cause those schools to "implode," because so many concerned parents will see they have no alternative but to remove their children from public schools.
That's an issue that California already is facing, as WND has reported. There, a coalition of organizations is encouraging parents, and providing resources for them to be able to remove their children from public schools. The coalition's goal is to take 600,000 children from California's public districts, because of a new state law there requiring indoctrination that not only is pro-homosexual, but also affirms bisexuality, transsexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.
"The human secularist religion of the [National Education Association,] buttressed by the power of the state, will now turn public schools into the next secular synagogues," Parker said. "[They say], 'We're just preparing the kids to be citizens.' But it's a religion. It is a devious and evil form of religion."
He said it is the responsibility and right of parents, not schools, to "keep the boundaries."
"That is how you raise children. If you wipe the boundaries away, that's the worst thing for children," he said.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Lexington, Mass., school district can teach children contrary ideas without violating their parents' rights to exercise religious beliefs.
"Public schools," wrote Judge Sandra L. Lynch, "are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them."
Lynch's reasoning was based on the Massachusetts Supreme Court's groundbreaking 2003 decision ruling "that the state constitution mandates the recognition of same-sex marriage."
As WND reported in 2006, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf originally dismissed the civil rights lawsuit by David and Tonia Parker, concluding there is, in fact, an obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.
The case, which has been chronicled extensively by the non-profit advocacy group MassResistance, poses great dangers, Parker told WND, because if homosexuality and bisexuality can be taught by public school teachers to children as young as age 5, there is virtually no topic, up to and including Nazism, that educational precedents would not allow to be taught to young children.
"There is a history of civil rights and First Amendment cases losing badly in the local and federal courts and then winning in the U.S. Supreme Court, including the famous Hurly South Boston Parade case (parade organizers vs. homosexual activists) in the 1990s which won 9-0 after losing 17 times in state and federal courts," Mass Resistance said.
The appellate ruling reflected the same attitude that the trial judge did, Parker said. The appeals court said that if the parents were "offended," they "may seek recourse to the normal political processes for change in the town and state."
The trial judge had suggested the parents could provide homeschool or another alternative as a solution.
The dispute began in the spring of 2005 when the Parkers then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.
The Parkers filed suit against the Lexington school district in 2006 and later were joined by Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, whose second-grader's class was read a story during class time about two princes who become lovers.

2008-02-03T11:49:00.000-08:00

Biography
Rodney Lynn Dawson, age 41, of Leander, Texas, formerly of Austin, Texas, passed away on Wednesday, January 30, 2008. He was born in Lexington, Kentucky on October 2, 1966 to parents Glenn and Nina (McFarland) Dawson. Rodney loved the outdoors, camping and fishing. He lived for his family. Rodney was a loving husband, father and son who will be deeply missed by all who knew him.

He was preceded in death by his grandparents Willie and Ida McFarland of McKee, Kentucky.

He is survived by his wife, Cindy Dawson of Leander, Texas; daughter, Taren Langhoff of Leander, Texas; son, Drew Langhoff of The Woodlands, Texas; mother, Nina Dawson of Austin, Texas; father, Glenn Dawson of Lexington, Kentucky; brother, Greg Dawson of Syracuse, New York; grandfather, Gilbert Dawson of Versailles, Kentucky; and grandmother, Beaulah Toll of Lexington, Kentucky.

A memorial service to celebrate Rodney’s life will be held on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 1:00 P.M. in the chapel of the Cook-Walden Davis Funeral Home in Georgetown, Texas with Pastor Steve Byrne officiating.

In lieu flowers memorial contributions may be made in Rodney’s name to American Cancer Society, c/o LaVerne Tonn, P.O. Box 407, Georgetown, Texas 78627.

Arrangements by Cook-Walden/Davis Funeral Home, 2900 Williams Drive, Georgetown, Texas 78628 (512)863-2564.

===========================================

Rodney, we love you man. We miss you.

U.S. officials: CIA kills top al Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan

2008-01-31T20:32:00.000-08:00

U.S. officials: CIA kills top al Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan. Abu Laith al-Libi, a wanted al Qaeda terrorist, was killed in Pakistan by a CIA airstrike, three U.S. officials told CNN Thursday.

Just couldn't leave us alone, could you.

Children Are a Heritage from the Lord

2008-01-21T11:44:00.000-08:00

by Dr. James C. Dobson
January 2008

Dear Friends:

Another new year is upon us, and, here again, we find ourselves celebrating the sanctity of human life while mourning the anniversary of the fateful Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, which legalized abortion across the United States. These rulings are now 35 years old, and in their wake are the lives of more than 45 million innocent babies, with another 2,740 being killed every day. Clearly, this is a time for somber reflection on our “culture of death,” as well as for earnest prayer that the scourge of abortion will soon be relegated to the sad annals of history.

As we look forward to the day when abortion-on-demand is no longer tolerated by our society, it is beneficial to consider how we got here in the first place. How much do you really know about the original Roe v. Wade decision as it was handed down in 1973, or about the closely related Doe v. Bolton ruling? I doubt whether most Americans realize just how sweeping and ominous those decisions were in terms of dismantling our nation’s embrace of the sanctity of human life, or the effect that legalized abortion has had on other life issues such as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and even violent crime.

Our staff recently joined with our great friends at the Alliance Defense Fund and Concerned Women for America to create a unique survey called the “Roe IQ Test,” which gauges each respondent’s knowledge and attitudes concerning these infamous 1973 Supreme Court decisions. It includes 12 questions, and I assure you that the answers to several of the questions are surprising. To be honest, when I first saw the test I wasn’t sure I would be able to answer each question correctly myself. I have included the full survey below, and I encourage you to take a few minutes to look it over and consider the questions. I’m convinced that if Americans could answer each of these questions accurately, support for legalized abortion would erode even faster than it already has.

The answers to the following questions are included in a separate key at the end of this letter. Please don’t look ahead — see how many of these questions you are able to answer off the top of your head, without doing any outside research.

Now, to the test:

Note: The U.S. Supreme Court’s control over abortion laws is significantly influenced by two 1973 decisions: Roe v. Wade (Roe) and Doe v. Bolton (Doe). To keep things simple, this I.Q test considers both rulings but refers to the better known of the two cases, Roe. So, Roe represents both Roe and Doe in the questions.

1) Which most accurately describes when a woman may have an abortion under Roe?
A. Anytime during the first three months (first trimester) of her pregnancy
B. Anytime during the first six months (second trimester) of her pregnancy
C. Anytime during her entire pregnancy
D. Anytime during the first three months, but can have an abortion later if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest

2) Which best describes the limitations Roe places on why a woman may have an abortion?
A. No limitations
B. Only in case of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger
C. No limitations during the first three months of pregnancy, but only medically necessary abortions after that

3) True or False. Roe allowed late-term abortions.
A. True
B. False

4) True or False. If Roe were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, abortion would immediately become illegal in the United States.
A. True
B. False

5) According to the Centers for Disease Control, about how many abortions have been performed in the United States since the Roe decision in 1973?
A. Less than 10 million
B. 10-19 million
C. 20-29 million
D. 30-39 million
E. 40-49 million
F. 50-59 million
G. More than 60 million

6) At what age does Roe require minor girls to have parental notification before an abortion?
A. Parental notification is not required
B. Girls 18 and younger
C. Girls 16 and younger
D. Girls 13 and younger

7) True or False. Roe allowed sex-selection abortions — abortions performed because of the sex of the baby (For example: parents wanting a boy instead of a girl — and vice-versa).
A. True
B. False

8) What percentage of abortions are performed because of rape or incest?
A. More than 16 percent
B. 11-15 percent
C. 6-10 percent
D. 2-5 percent
E. Fewer than 1 percent

9) Which of our nation’s founding documents contains the phrase “right to an abortion”?
A. Declaration of Independence
B. U.S. Constitution
C. Bill of Rights
D. None of the Above
E. All of the Above

10) Which Supreme Court Justice said the following about Roe: “Roe v. Wade . . . ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an inadequate justification for its action.”
A. Justice Samuel Alito
B. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
C. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
D. Justice Antonin Scalia
E. Justice Clarence Thomas

11) Which country’s laws make it easiest to have an abortion?
A. Finland
B. Great Britain
C. Ireland
D. United States
E. Mexico

12) Under Roe, which of these are allowed to perform abortions?
A. Licensed physician
B. Nurse practitioner
C. Resident assistant
D. Registered nurse
E. All of the above

Are you confident in your answers to the preceding questions? Now take a look at the key included with this letter to find out how you scored. I missed one question when I first took the survey, giving me a score of 92 percent. Which answer did I get wrong? Question #10 tripped me up, as I did not even consider the possibility that an ultra-liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, could have said anything negative about the Roe decision. But there you have it.

If your schedule permits, we would appreciate you logging onto our online version of the exam and transferring your original answers for official tabulation. This can be found at www.roeiqtest.com. Please note that the online survey includes an additional eight questions that don’t involve “right” or “wrong” answers, but are rather designed to identify certain demographical characteristics of each respondent. By answering Questions 13-20 on our Internet survey, you will help our research staff gain a clearer picture of the beliefs and backgrounds of the survey respondents. Rest assured that you will remain completely anonymous.

You don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to know that reading a so-called “right to abortion” into any of our nation’s founding documents is a gross deviation from the intent of our Founding Fathers. An honest and accurate reading of our Constitution simply does not allow for it. Yet pro-abortion forces, from 1973 straight through to today, have always argued that legalized abortion somehow results in better lives for women. But the facts tell a very different story. What many have touted as the ultimate expression of “women’s rights” has actually victimized women to an unprecedented degree.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) conducted an in-depth study in July 2007 titled “Long-Term Complications Associated with Induced Abortion.” It contains a wealth of extensive research demonstrating the devastating physical and emotional effects of abortion on women. Although there is solid research to verify their conclusions, not surprisingly, these findings have been almost completely ignored by the mainstream media and by left-leaning elements of the medical profession. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated: “Long term risks sometimes attributed to surgical abortion include potential effects on reproductive function, cancer incidence, and psychological sequelae. However, the medical literature, when carefully evaluated, clearly indicates no significant negative impact on any of these factors with surgical abortion.”

AAPLOG’s research demonstrates how faulty this conclusion is. Their study opens with this telling statement: “We are aware of no studies that demonstrate a better mental or physical health outcome for aborted women, compared to those who choose to deliver. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that induced abortion in many cases is associated with significant degradation of emotional health, physical health and reproductive health.”

Specifically, AAPLOG’s study cites links between abortion and depression, substance abuse, suicide, placenta previa (a dangerous medical condition), breast cancer, premature birth, and low birth weight among post-abortion women.

Consider these examples from the report:

• A study in New Zealand found that at age 25, 42 percent of women in the study group who had had an abortion also experienced major depression at some stage during the past four years. This was nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant and 35 percent higher than those who had chosen to continue a pregnancy.

• Data from California shows that compared with women who had previously given birth, women who aborted were 929 percent more likely to use marijuana, 460 percent more likely to use other illicit drugs, and 122 percent more likely to use alcohol during their next pregnancy.

• A University of Minnesota study on teen suicide found that the rate of attempted suicide in the six months prior to the study increased tenfold for teens who had aborted during those previous six months.

• Researchers at South Glomorgan Health Authority in Great Britain found that after abortions, there were 8.9 suicide attempts per 1,000, compared with 1.9 suicide attempts per 1,000 among those who gave birth.

• Studies also show a link between abortion and placentia previa (a condition in which the placenta is implanted abnormally low in the uterine cavity) during subsequent pregnancies.

• Although controversial, research continues to suggest a link between abortion and the subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. More than 41 studies worldwide (including 16 conducted in America) have reported data on the risk of breast cancer among women with a history of induced abortion. A full 29 (70 percent) of these studies reported an increased risk, with 13 (or 81 percent) of the American studies reporting an increased risk.

• More than 50 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature birth or low birth weight risk in women with prior induced abortions. Consider, for example, that in Ireland, where induced abortion is illegal, the prematurity rate in 2003 was 5.48 percent, less than half the U.S. rate of 12.3 percent.

These bullet points do not even begin to scratch the surface of the wide body of research demonstrating the links between abortion and physical and emotional difficulties for post-abortion women. Again, this information is widely ignored or discounted by liberal politicians, activists, and medical organizations. You would think that shocking statistics of this nature would make the front page of The New York Times and that groups such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) would be screaming in protest about the indignities and abuses that have been heaped upon women at the hands of the abortion industry. Instead, the facts are buried or ignored and we are told that the right to an abortion is the hallmark of female empowerment.

For the past 35 years the pro-life community has been emphasizing the fact that every abortion leaves “one dead and one wounded.” At the same time, pro-abortion forces have been proclaiming that “everybody wins” in the era of legalized abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But, as I mentioned at the beginning of this letter, we have many reasons for hope as we observe this tragic anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Public opinion polls continue to show that the American people are increasingly embracing a pro-life perspective. The use of ultrasound technology in medical Pregnancy Resource Centers nationwide has led to a dramatic increase in the number of women who choose to deliver their babies (once you’ve seen a live image of your living, moving baby inside the womb, the lie that it’s “just a blob of tissue” goes out the window). That’s what Focus on the Family’s Option Ultrasound initiative is all about. Meanwhile, numerous pieces of legislation have been enacted at the state and national levels to help curb the number of overall abortions and to reign in, slowly but surely, some of the most troubling aspects of the original Roe v. Wade decision.

Please join me in praying that the abortion-on-demand era will soon come to an end. Legally, the power to bring this shameful period in American history to its conclusion lies with the same body that gave us legalized abortion in the first place: the United States Supreme Court. This is one reason why the upcoming presidential election is so important to those of us who believe in the sanctity of all human life. I’m thankful that President Bush nominated two excellent, conservative, “strict-constructionist” judges to the Court in Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Nevertheless, five liberal justices remain on the Court, and it is almost certain that one or perhaps all five of them will retire during the next two presidential terms. The judges nominated to the Supreme Court by our next leader could set the direction of the court for the next 30 years. We must be praying now about the upcoming election and its impact on the powerful judiciary.

Many thanks to those of you who, through your prayers and finances, continue to support Focus on the Family in our efforts to defend the sanctity of human life. And thanks to those of you who, through your churches, local Pregnancy Resource Centers, and personal relationships, are working to proclaim the value of life to those around you and, ultimately, point them toward the Giver of life. Keep fighting the good fight!

Sincerely,

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Founder and Chairman

P.S. To illustrate the relevance of the upcoming presidential election to the makeup of the Supreme Court, consider the current ages of liberal members now serving:

Justice David Souter Age 69
Justice Stephen Breyer Age 70
Justice Anthony Kennedy Age 71
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg Age 74
Justice John Paul Stevens Age 87

The next president could have the opportunity to nominate successors to all five! I urge you to be prayer, be informed, and be prepared to vote in both your state’s primary and in the general election!

ANSWERS: 1 [C] 2 [A] 3 [A] 4 [B] 5 [E] 6 [A] 7 [A] 8 [E] 9 [D] 10 [B] 11 [D] 12 [E]

This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for noncommercial and nonpolitical purposes without prior permission from Focus on the Family.

U.S Abortion Rate Hits 30 Year Low

2008-01-19T07:13:00.000-08:00

1-17-2008
U.S. Abortion Rate Hits 30-Year Low

by Devon Williams, associate editor

In 2005, 1.2 million babies were killed in the womb.

The abortion rate in the U.S. fell to a 30-year low in 2005, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood. That year, 1.2 million preborn babies were killed, compared to a high of 1.6 million in 1990.

During the 1980s, one in three pregnant women chose abortion; today, it's one in five.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) said pro-life educational outreaches and legislative initiatives are to thank.

"What the pro-life movement has done, and continues to do, is save hundreds of thousands of lives," said Randall K. O'Bannon, NRLC director of education and research. "Falling abortion rates are a sure sign that, given truthful information about abortion, about its impact on their lives, about the child growing inside them, and given even the slightest help and encouragement, many women will choose life."

Twenty-six states provide women seeking abortion with information about its risks and alternatives. Ten states allow women to view ultrasound images of their preborn child. In addition, 35 states have laws providing for parental involvement in a minor daughter’s abortion decision.

Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the pro-life message resonates with the public.

“Polls continue to find that most Americans support restricting abortions to what are called ‘hard cases,’ such as rape, incest and to save the life of the mother,” she said. “The fact that such proposed abortion bans still have public support is quite a testament to the influence of the pro-life voice.”

The Guttmacher report follows recent news that the U.S. is experiencing its highest birthrate in 45 years.

In Kansas, Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline is doing his part to protect the preborn. In October, Kline filed 107 charges against Planned Parenthood, accusing it of performing illegal late-term abortions.

In court Wednesday, Kline said Planned Parenthood “manufactured” records related to some abortions performed in 2003. When the case goes to trial, Kline plans to call as witnesses two of the clinic’s attorneys.

========================================
Source of above artical was found in CitizenLink.com

While still fully crediting the Pro-Life Voice for the wonderful work they are doing, I credit the Lord for a work He is doing in the hearts of people across the country and answering the many prayers prayed to Him.
David

About Value Voters

2008-01-04T17:29:00.000-08:00

1-4-2008
Dr. Dobson: Media 'Dead Wrong' About Values Voters
by Jennifer Mesko, managing editor
Conservative Christians flex their muscles in Iowa caucuses.
Just a few months ago, the media were busy writing an obituary for Values Voters. On Thursday night, those voters apparently came back from the dead.
In Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, former Gov. Mike Huckabee finished first among Republicans, thanks in large part to evangelical voters.
“The results of the Iowa caucuses reveal that conservative Christians remain a powerful force in American politics," said Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family Action. "That had to be a great shock to those on the far Left! The New York Times wrote a demeaning obituary of Values Voters in an article called The Evangelical Crackup. CNN piled on, proclaiming the demise of the 'old values,' referring to traditional marriage and the sanctity of human life. They and other media elites turned out to be dead wrong.

“Sixty percent of the GOP participants in the Iowa caucuses were self-identified evangelicals, and 45 percent of them backed Mike Huckabee," Dr. Dobson added. "The former governor may not become the Republican nominee, and I have not endorsed him, but what happened there last night was evidence of an energized and highly motivated conservative community. Not bad for a supposed bunch of demoralized, depressed, disillusioned and disengaged Reaganites.”
Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action, said Iowa reflects the core values of America.
"The winners are the Values Voters, the social conservatives, the Christian voters of this country," he said. "The Republican establishment was trying to push their issues off the table, and they pushed back in a very strong way."
FOR MORE INFORMATION Will Dr. Dobson endorse a candidate? What role did grassroots activism play in Mike Huckabee's win in Iowa? These and other questions are answered during a 40-minute webcast from Focus on the Family Action. Technical difficulties beyond our control prevented some from seeing the webcast live Thursday night. It is now available on CitizenLink.com.

The Oprah Factor

2007-12-11T21:46:00.000-08:00

The Oprah Factor. Heck, don't vote for Obama, vote for Oprah.

Waterboarding and Torture

2007-12-11T20:45:00.000-08:00

Waterboarding and Torture

What have we come to? We come up to a terrorist who is part of a group who is or may be about to kill hundreds or maybe thousands of Americans, or maybe it is Sudanese or Brazilians, and we are only allowed to ask him or them questions and say please to him for his answer. We must be careful not to do anything to hurt him or even to scare him. Now it may even be you or your family members or friends, or neighbors who are at the mercy of this guy to answer vital questions with only a please at the end of it. So we must depend on the kindness of this guys heart to prevent this catastrophe from happening. This same guy, that in some cases just cut off the head of an innocent person while he was screaming until his throat gurgled from his own blood and then the spine of his neck was finished being cut with a hack saw. I don't know what all we have as our disposal or what all is humane that we can and some times may do, but waterboarding is a very effective and also harmless way of getting information. I really don't care if they pull the fingernails and toenails out of some of these monsters to get information to help save the lives of the innocent, but to sit there and cry about a rather harmless way of interrogating the enemy that is also effective to me seems ludicrous. People these kind of complaints are understandable to be coming from the enemy. But to have those among us who supposed to not be the enemy, doing the work of the enemy, preventing the successful acquisition of information that in many cases may save many innocent lives, seems crazy to me. I say don't sit there an tie the hands of our protectors. Most would change their stance as they see their own drop from the blows of death of these people. I suggest to not wait until the next mass killings of the innocent, to allow what ever interrogating techniques that work, to be done, to protect us.
David 12-12-07

Fired over Views

2007-12-08T07:00:00.000-08:00

Biologist Says He Was Fired
over Views on Creationism

A biologist sued the Cape Cod Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution this week, claiming he was fired after telling his boss he doesn’t believe in evolution.
Nathaniel Abraham, who was a postdoctoral researcher at the center, said he was asked to resign because of his belief in the biblical account of creation. His supervisor, Mark E. Hahn, said Abraham should have known that evolution was an integral part of the lab’s work, the Boston Globe reported. The lawsuit seeks $500,000.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said federal employment laws are fairly clear on situations like this.
“If the biologist was fired for refusing to perform work he was hired to do, then the termination is justified no matter what the religious beliefs of the biologist were,” he said. “If, however, this is a case where the facility terminated him solely because of his belief in creationism, then the facility may be found liable for religious discrimination.”

Clinton

2007-11-22T20:51:00.000-08:00

Quick reminder. Remember when Hilary was first Lady and Bill was president. Hilary decided as First Lady she was going to reform our Health Care System. After she got her hands on it, it all broke loose. This is when Health Insurance Premiums jumped from about $40 to $70 a month for many, to around $300 to $400 a month and went from covering most medical situations to being highly limited. Now just think what she can do if she becomes President.

Court rules in school, gay case

2007-10-28T11:24:00.000-07:00

Posted on Sat, Oct. 27, 2007
Court rules in school, gay case
Boyd student may pursue damages
By Cassondra Kirby
CKIRBY@HERALD-LEADER.COM
Related Content
A Boyd County High School student can pursue damages from the school district over a policy that required anti-harassment training relating to homosexuality, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
In a 2-1 vote, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Boyd County school district's 2004-2005 speech policy placed a "chill" on student Timothy Allen Morrison's ability to profess his Christian beliefs and opposition to homosexuality.
Morrison sued the Boyd County school district over the anti-harassment training and the district's written harassment/discrimination policy, claiming the training and written code threatened him with punishment for speaking his convictions that homosexuality is sinful.
Morrison says his religion requires him to speak out against what he sees as behavior that doesn't comply with his understanding of the Bible. However, Morrison was never punished under the policy because he remained silent on his beliefs rather than risk discipline.
The school district's policy was later revised to allow speech that would normally be protected outside of the school, and the school later allowed students to opt out of the once-mandatory anti-harassment training.
Morrison, who is a senior at Boyd County High, could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Christian legal group that represented Morrison, said that they were pleased with the ruling.
"We feel like the Christian viewpoint on homosexual behavior should not be silenced in schools," said Joel Oster, senior council for ADF. "It should be permitted and this ruling really supports that."
Oster said high school students should not be treated like "second-class citizens."
"They have just as much right to engage in free speech," he said.
Sharon McGowan, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who represented the school board in the interest of protecting gay and transgender students, applauded the ruling. McGowan told The Associated Press that the ruling recognizes that schools can't violate anyone's free speech rights, but can take steps including training to protect gay students. "Our students have always been about promoting dialogue," McGowan said. "They have never been looking to suppress other people's views."
Members of the school board declined to comment yesterday, but referred questions to the ACLU.
Yesterday's ruling from the court of appeals sends the case back to U.S. District Judge David Bunning for a hearing on damages to be paid to Morrison.
The two judges in favor of allowing Morrison's case to move forward, Judge Karen Nelson Moore and Judge John R. Adams, wrote that Morrison's allegation of a policy suppressing free speech is enough to allow him to seek nominal damages, which are awarded to show that the loss or harm suffered was technical rather than actual.
To make his case, the judges said, Morrison must show that the policy would "deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her First Amendment liberties."
In her one-page written opinion, Judge Deborah Cook, who disagreed with the other two judges, said "this is a case about nothing."
Cook said Morrison, who chose to be cautious and remain silent rather than risk being disciplined, suffered no actual harm from the policy. He was never punished under the policy and the policy that was alleged to be unconstitutional has since been revised, she said.
"This case should be over," Cook wrote. "The school district has ... adopted a policy that properly balances the district's duty to protect openly gay and lesbian students with the important First Amendment right of allowing students to speak their minds."
Keeping this case alive for a determination on the constitutionality of the old code of conduct "in the hope of awarding Morrison a single dollar" vindicates no interest and "trivializes the important business of the federal courts in protecting actual constitutional violations," Cook said.
Furthermore, Cook said, there's no evidence that the school district would have punished Morrison for speaking his beliefs.
"We cannot find a school district constitutionally liable for chilling student speech every time a student chooses caution over risking possible discipline," Cook said.
The anti-harassment training sessions at issue in Morrison's case stem from a settlement in 2004 of a three-year dispute between the school district and a now-defunct gay-rights group that wanted recognition as an extracurricular group.
The settlement between the school district and the Gay-Straight Alliance appeared to settle a legal battle and larger community controversy that had pitted gay-rights supporters against religious conservatives.
At issue was the federal Equal Access Act, which says if the school district allows student groups to meet on campus, it can't bar other groups from access to school facilities based on religious, political or philosophical orientation.

COMMENTARY:

Is it appropriate to have sex clubs at school and or to allow sex club meetings when classified as a group? Why not allow a public forum at school meetings for discussions on the children’s preferences on sexual aids and sexual activities. It gets a lot worse. People these are our children, these are our schools. What is wrong with barring all sexual promoted activities at a child’s school. Gay or straight either one.
As I read theses rulings and responses of those who these things have come before, they appear tired, confused, and frustrated.
Some seem to want to promote free views and free speech as long as those are not Christian. About the only time some appear to back off “chilling” the views of the Christian is if not doing so ends up “chilling” the ACLU’s view as well.
Who is Sharon McGowan speaking for when she makes the statement “They have never been looking to suppress other people’s views?” Is this the “Student’s” view or the view of the ACLU? Looking and looking I have seen no evidence that this could possibly be a true statement about the ACLU.
I do see it as a problem if we do not enforce rules against harassment. I don’t believe a child should be picked on because he or she believes they are gay, or if they are fat or ugly. I don’t think children should be picked on or bullied. It is a part of life, but if we can teach them not to, we should. I don’t however believe it starts or ends with gay. I don’t think sex belongs with our children. We as a society appear to have gone from believing sexual activity among our children is wrong, to not caring, to approving, and now allowing some of these organizations to come into our schools and promote it, and on to protecting it. I find the lot of this disgusting.

The Values Test

2007-10-04T21:39:00.000-07:00

10-4-2007

Print This Article
E-Mail This Article

The Values Test

by James C. Dobson, Ph.D., founder and chairman
Dr. Dobson says winning an election is important, but not at the expense of our core beliefs.
Reports have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly “splintering.” That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president.That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a “splintering” of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008. (This piece originally appeared as an op-ed in today's New York Times.)

Palestinians in Gaza

2007-09-14T18:23:00.000-07:00

Palestinians in Gaza

I find it amazing how the Palestinians go about firing rockets at Israel and then dare them to shut off power and water to them as that would be a horrible and mean thing to do, and what horrible people they are for consider turning off their water and electricity. I mean how are they supposed to manufacture their rockets and fuel to fire explosives at the Israelis without electricity and water. I mean the Gaza Palestinians will really most likely shake their finger at the Israelis if they do such a thing.

War and Politicians

2007-09-14T17:58:00.000-07:00

War and Politicians

The United States no longer has what it takes to win a war. Our enemies now have a guaranteed win over the U.S. Our enemies have learned and we have not, that all they have to do is hold out long enough for our politicians to control what the Generals need to be doing. Then our enemy appears to have a guaranteed victory.
Politics is the art of compromise. War is the art or nastiness of victory. There is no compromise in a victorious war. Politicians should stay out of running a war, for most part.
In the Gulf War, politics had us half do the war with Iraq. This left the Shiites and the Kurds in Iraq to be massacred. We are suffering the repercussions still today.
While the Generals must answer to politicians, and politicians to the people, once the Generals are given a task, then they should be given the tools and what ever is necessary to accomplish it. Their needs are dynamic and so should their supply and logistics be. If a soldier needs amo during a firefight, give him amo. If a General needs soldiers to accomplish a mission, give him soldiers. Don’t get them started and then pull the rug out from under them, so to speak. It would make since for example, to have troops in say, Kuwait, and allow our Generals to pull them from Kuwait to Iraq and back as needed, without asking Congress for permission each time, and without informing the enemy ahead of time, each time as well.

IRAN/KORAN = HATE

2007-09-14T17:51:00.000-07:00

IRAN/KORAN = HATE

Iran has chosen to be the enemy of the United States. With our help mind you. Keep in mind they could have chosen the opposite as well. The U.S. government supported Iran’s previous government and since the current government didn’t like the previous one, they don’t like us either. You probably can make claim the previous government was repressive. You also can probably make many more such claims about the current Iranian government. Not sure in what name the previous government repressed in, but the current one I believe does it in the name of Allah. It is really in some Cleric’s name, but if it is in the interest of the Cleric, and he states it is for Allah, their name for their god, then it is all of a sudden, in the name of Allah. And anyone they don’t like becomes Satin, or the Great Satin. Amazing that Satin was named in books, one called the Koran, a very long time ago, much longer than the 200 years the U.S. has been in existence, but to them, Satin is born just recently.
Hate is taught and learned. Iran is an expert in teaching and exporting hate. The entire Islamic religion appears to teach hate. It is amazing how many of the parishioners eat it up. You would figure these guys have some of the highest blood pressure. I mean hate eats you up.
Iran has chosen to hate the U.S. Iran has chosen to hate us. They befriend their enemies if their enemies hate us so that they can collectively hate us. They seem to thrive on hate. They must have someone to hate. They will never be at peace, as peace and hate do not co-exist.
I met some Iranians some 20 plus years ago and some of them were very nice and good people. Some were totally filled with hate. There was no way to reason with the ones filled with hate. I asked the nice ones what the deal was with the ones filled with hate. The nice ones explained the hate filled ones were very religious. They hate the infidels. Infidels are anyone who is not their brand of Muslim. This can include other Muslims who do not think they way they do. I also couldn’t understand why the hate filled religious Muslims were such liars. I was working with this one hate filled religious Muslim guy and I could not understand his constant lies. The nicer Iranians explained in his religion, it was ok lie to or about anyone who was an infidel, or not a Muslim. This guy really steamed with hate. I don’t think he had any idea where it came from, but he had been taught it well. I guess it is not just Iran equals hate, but it appears many, if not most, Muslims equal hate.
Looking back, the hate appears to have started with their founder. History shows their founder as a young man, walked with some men who claimed to be Christians who set a very poor example, thus becoming very confused. Also their founder is to have instructed his followers to use and follow the Old Testament Bible in all areas except and until it differed with his book, and then his book is to be followed. I understand the founder was a warrior, or a killer for much of his life. He died killing and taught/teaches his followers to die killing. Thus you have today’s suicide killers. I would imagine to be able to kill this way, one must first learn to hate. al Qaeda and Iran and many in Iraq appear to be experts in hating and teaching hate.

to be continued….

Taliban

2007-09-14T17:39:00.000-07:00

Taliban

The Taliban have killed another hostage. The out right murder of another innocent person. They are thereaten to kill the remaining 22 hostages they have. The Taliban have once again proven they cannot coexist with the rest of the world. Unfortunately the only way of living with the barbaric Taliban is to not live with the Taliban. It is either them or us. The Taliban has necessitated their complete destruction. There needs to be nothing left of the Taliban, same as al Qaeda. There is a need to not coexist with a group who is just going to kill us. It has come time to destroy them first. They need to be hunted down like a dog and destroyed.
David 07-30-07

Now the Taliban are releasing hostages. Does this make them more human? The Taliban have had a very long history of murder long before the United States came in to Afghanistan. The Taliban are still the dogs that they have always been.
Yesterday, 8-28-07, U.S. led and Afghan troops battled leaving over 100 of the Taliban dead. If only the Taliban who have taken and brutally shot these innocent people could receive the same fate. Those brave Taliban who show how they can take an unarmed person who has no intent of doing them or anyone harm, and then shoots them. They must really think they are something. Dogs they are. Satin has completely taken their hearts. They are pure evil. They should be hunted down and given the same fate as the captives they murdered.
David 08-29-07

Well, it is wonderful the Taliban have released the remaining hostages. Now all they need to do
to become good and upstanding people of the human race is bring those they have murdered back to life.
This scum needs to be hunted down relentlessly.
David 09-0?-07

A Same-Sex 'Wedding' in the Heartland of America

2007-09-14T17:36:00.000-07:00

A Same-Sex 'Wedding' in the Heartland of America

by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor

Iowa's higher courts will decide if they can continue.

With the help of two elitist judges, two men got "married" in Polk County, Iowa, this morning.
On Thursday (in August 2007), Judge Robert Hanson struck down the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act. About two dozen homosexual couples obtained marriage licenses before Hanson issued a stay on his ruling around noon today. In the meantime, Judge Scott Rosenburg agreed to sign an "emergency" waiver allowing one of the couples to marry today rather than wait three days, as required by law.
"There seems to be no end to the judicial arrogance being displayed in Iowa this week," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "Now it appears that judges can not only write the marriage laws, but they can waive any 'inconvenient' laws otherwise required — one-stop shopping for radical social change."
Justices on the Iowa Supreme Court may refer the case to the state Court of Appeals or hear it themselves.
"Until the Iowa Supreme Court renders a final decision in this case, any same-sex 'marriages' that occur in Iowa run the risk that those nuptials will be rendered null and void," Hausknecht said.
Iowa Republican House Minority Leader Christopher Rants said Hanson's Thursday ruling illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman.
"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa," Rants told The Associated Press. "I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.
Nearly all states have defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, and 27 states have such wording in their constitutions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Same-sex marriage is legal only in Massachusetts.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said an amendment is the only way to protect traditional marriage from "aberrant judges."
"I urge Iowans to pass a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, joining the majority of states that have already defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman in their state constitutions," he said. "Only state constitutional amendments and ultimately a federal constitutional amendment will ensure that marriage is fully protected."

Commentary:
Did you know there is a fear that if civil unions for same sex partners are sanctioned that it will likely evolve to where as a next step there will be request or demands for same sex marriages between man and man, and woman and woman and demanding this be sanctioned by all. I mean after all, in many cases they have been living together in what they call a "normal" relationship. Either of those were considered unthinkable years ago.
This is the beginning of the destruction of marriage and the family.
Did you know there is a fear of judges legislating from the bench and forcing the states moral values on us. Did you know there is a fear of the next step being those who have two or more women and a man, or men, or two or more men and a woman, or several women, living together in a relationship insisting they be allowed to marry each other and be as a sanctioned union. After all, in many cases they are in a loving relationship, care for each other, and have children, and a need for insurance and all that goes with a marriage and family. Why should they be penalized just because it doesn't currently meet your standards of what a marriage is, and what you consider normal.
What is normal? American Heritage says:
nor·mal (nôr"m…l) adj. 1. Abbr. norm. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations. 2. Abbr. norm. Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
--nor·mal n. Abbr. norm. 1. Something normal; the standard: scored close to the normal. 2. The usual or expected state, form, amount, or degree. 3.a. Correspondence to a norm. b. An average.
In other words, normal is a standard. A standard is pretty much what ever we set it at. After all, we, or someone keeps the standard sliding down hill, and are continually changing the standard for what is acceptable. I think it would do us good to take notice of whom it is that is setting our standards.
I have an opinion of who would be much better at setting those standard than all of us.
Next there is a fear that there are people who happen to love their pets or animals very much, that they would attempt to get legislation passed to get the animal's status changed to legally be set as human. Yes, to get the legal status for example, of an Ape to have the same legal status as humans. This is being considered in Australia currently.
Also, not particularly so much as a fear, but there are likely to be some people wanting to leave their estate, or part of their estate to their beloved animal. Where does this end? Not the worst thing that could happen in the world leaving your estate to a dog, however, this is still changing the "standard" of what is "normal." Am I the only one that doesn't think this is normal?
Next there is the fear that someone who really loves their pet, or their horse, or what ever animal they have, might feel they should be able to give in marriage to one of these animals. After all, they do truly love the creature.
Did you know, the only one of these things not being pushed for by a group of people somewhere is the later, or the marriage to an animal.? That is as far as I know and God forbid. These things are no longer just fears, but are already taking place, one place or another.
If we keep letting people change our standard, or what it normal, It just may be that one day you will be living next door to someone married to their dog or some other animal they dearly love, or a group of loving people all married to each other. You already are living next to people strange enough to do it. Do you actually sanction this, and consider this normal? We already have children living in the confused state of wondering who their mom or dad is, mostly because they have two of one or the other. Can you imagine the confusion of a child having 3 moms and 2 dads. Why that is confusing for anyone.
Just keep not caring what values your representatives have and saying it doesn't matter what he/she does in their personal life, as long as it doesn't affect their political life.
Most of the politicians are more subtle, but just take a look at what our judges are doing. Since they appear to have to answer to no-one, many have no qualms about being quite blatant and in your face with their behavior, such as the ones listed in the above article.
I say it is right and proper for the people to force their values on the state, but that a reason for revolution is when the state forces it's values on the people. Thus, judges can not be allowed to legislate from the bench. Those that do, must be removed, and also the politicians who work to keep them there.
I believe legislating from the bench is a travesty to our government and should be grounds for impeachment. I say it is down right unconstitutional. We the people should not stand by and let this continue to happen.
Stand up for your family man! And yes, woman. Do not sit idly by and let the institution of the Family be destroyed. It will, sooner or later, make a difference to your own family.

Official: $20 billion arms sale to Saudis in the works

2007-09-14T17:30:00.000-07:00

Official: $20 billion arms sale to Saudis in the works

As reported by CNN 7-29-07 Commentary at bottom of page.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States is developing a proposed $20 billion, 10-year arms sales package for Saudi Arabia, a senior administration official confirmed on Saturday.
The proposed sale, first reported in The New York Times, is intended to upgrade the Saudi military's ability to counter possible Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf region, the official said.
"This is all about Iran," said the official, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity because discussions with the Saudis are still going on and the arms sale deal has not been completed.
Israel is expected to raise objections to the arms package, and has expressed concerns about previous Saudi arms deals.
The official said the Bush administration is mindful that Israel must maintain its "qualitative edge" in the region.
Besides Saudi Arabia, other countries in discussion with the United States about arms sales include the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.
One of the more controversial proposals will probably be selling the Saudis, for the first time, satellite-guided bombs known as JDAMs. The sale may include a 500-pound and a 2,000-pound version of the aerial bomb.
The Israelis are said to be very concerned about the Saudis having that precision-strike capability, so the United States will discuss basing the weapons as far away from Israel as possible, the official said.
Other elements under discussion are new naval vessels, an advanced version of air-to-air missiles already used by the United States, and advanced Patriot missiles.
The proposed sale is expected to be a major topic of discussion next week when U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meet with Saudi officials.
The sale would have to be approved by Congress.

Commentary:
Well, this appears to be a turn around in that it appears the U.S. would be on the receiving end of the $20 billion instead of costing us. But think again, this will make some military contractors even more filthy rich. Better by a bit than another government getting the contract.
However, a few things to consider. Basing the weapons as far away from Israel as possible is little more than a band-aid for them. Once based “far away” what keeps them from being moved?
Next, is it always seems every time we help out a Muslim government, especially one that oppresses it’s people, it most always appears to end up biting us in the butt so to speak.
Would be nice to get some of the oil money back into the states though.
Unless we believe the Saudi’s will go to war against a potentially nuclear Iran, since it is stated to be all about Iran, I don’t see the benefit in this. Is there a contention between Saudi Arabia and Iran? Even if there were, would the Saudis face off with an Iran with a nuclear weapon? What about and Iran without a nuclear weapon? The Saudis have shown with us, to give lip service one way, and do another. Case in point is where they had time and time again since 9 1 1, stated they were anti-terrorism and all along supporting fundraising etc for groups in Saudi Arabia who were linked to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. They only may have quit after some of these same terrorist organizations began attacking Saudi interest inside Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is also the country where about most of the terrorist came from that attacked us on 911 and have been fighting us in Iraq as insurgents.
Can the Saudis be trusted? They don’t have a good track record.

2007-09-14T17:28:00.000-07:00

Gay Lutherans Challenge Celibacy Policy

Dozens of gay-identified clergy and seminarians “outed” themselves before the national assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) in Chicago on Tuesday to challenge the denomination’s requirement that homosexual clergy remain celibate.
They sang hymns and distributed a devotional book listing 80 pastors and seminarians prevented from ministering because of the policy, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. The 4.8 million-member ELCA denomination is headquartered in Chicago.
Caleb H. Price, research analyst for Focus on the Family, called the development one more case of “pro-gay revisionist theology” that has turned Scripture upside down and caused division and discord.
“Whether it’s in the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist or now Lutheran churches, the tactics of the gay activists are always the same – make continual calls for ‘conversation,’ agitate from within and play the victim card,” Price said.
“What’s interesting in this case is that those who have ‘come out’ seem more interested in jobs and health benefits than what God’s inspired Word has to say on the matter. In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus clearly teaches that God’s created intent for human sexuality is for lifelong marriage between one man and one woman. Anything outside of this paradigm is contrary to God’s revealed order.”

Question:
Why do gays want to teach God's word in the ministry? Or why do they wish to pretend they want to teach God's word in the ministry?
Gay or otherwise, if you want to change what God has to say, by changing what the Bible has to say, why not just start up your own church somewhere, write your own book to read sentences out of, that say what you want them to say, instead of coming in to an established church that states they teach God's word from the Bible, and then twist around what the Bible says to promote your own agenda, or leaving out those parts of the Bible you disagree with, pretending all along you are teaching God's word.
You really gotta have some kind of mental issues to do this.
This would be no different for any heterosexual who would come in to a church and make claim it is okay to have a heterosexual, sexual relationship outside of marriage.
Even though there are many of us who do these things, why pretend as you teach from the Bible that this is okay with God.
People, you got to know that those who are preachers and teachers of the Bible are held to a higher standard, and certainly not a lower one such as this. You gotta know you are gonna have to answer for this.
While those who flat do not believe God's word, the Bible, are not going to make it to heaven, those of you who teach from the Bible, and twist it the way many are doing could hardly not know you are in for the most serious of consequences, on that day you go before and answer to the Lord.
If you don't want to believe it (the Bible), which is your choice, then just stay away from it.

David 080807

U.S. plans $750 million in aid for Pakistani tribal areas

2007-09-14T17:19:00.000-07:00

U.S. plans $750 million in aid for Pakistani tribal areas.

It would appear to me the $750,000,000.00 gift Congress has decided to give to the lawless area of Pakistan in an attempt to buy their hearts and minds could not have been thought through well at all.
The idea to make friends instead of killing indeed sounds wonderful, for there are far to many to kill and far to few as friends.
Here, the idea of buying friends is understood in politics and commonplace, as it is done all the time with our politicians during campaigning and who knows when and where else. There, it is likely a different story.
At best, this gift would likely go to those who would appreciate it for no more than the time it took for them to receive it. Most likely they will see right through this as buying their friendship. They are not likely to feel good about it for any length of time. The bought friendship would be temporal at best.
First time we messed up, in their eyes, or some cleric tells them how evil we are, it's all down the drain.
Also many if not most of these people like it where they are and would not live anywhere else if they could. Pour millions of dollars in there and they would have trouble figuring out legitimate uses for it in the area. They would however find something to spend it on.
Can you imagine the terrorist in the area working hard to get funding for their jihad to fight and kill the infidels? Infidels by the way are about anyone who doesn't think like they do. Now here we are laying a nice big fat sum in their lap. The idea of funding our own next 911 does not appeal to me at all.
I understand the idea; befriend them instead of killing them, and that is a wonderful idea, especially if you were to consider the horror of killing and the shear numbers of those who count their selves our enemy.
The only way I could see this having a remote chance of doing any good at all even for a short time would be if there was a Czar appointed who could see the funds used in a fashion it trickle in as needed, to be used on what is needed, and to have authority to pull the plug on the program the moment he sees it not working or the likelihood the funds are not being used properly. But for this to happen he would have to be right in the area watching the progress or failure of the program. And to be present in the area, his life wouldn't be worth the powder it takes al Qaeda to blow him up with once they notice him.
This money has the potential of making a few people rich. Worse, making more people dangerous, to us.I have trouble seeing pouring $750,000,000.00 down this drain and funding our own next 911 disasters. The money would likely be better spent on very big bombs. bin Laden, his al Qaeda and Taliban still need blowing up.

Addendum:

President Bush is reported to be standing by his decision to support the 750 mil contribution to the tribal areas of Pakistan. Well, if our president strongly supports this, then it deserves another look. As I look at this again, I still see the potential of funding the terrorist. To see this as a workable idea as well as a credible one, it would be necessary for the administration to not only explain how the funds would be used, but to also explain how these would be kept out of the hands of terrorists and how it would be assured we would not be funding our own disasters in any way. That there would be no way any of these funds would be used against down the road. The President has said they would be used to provide jobs in the area, but even this could provide income to terrorist. Mr. President, how will this money be disseminated?

Marriage

2007-09-14T17:17:00.000-07:00

Marriage

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. The opportunity to become best friends forever. To never be entered in to lightly and always prayerfully. Those who develop a relationship with the Lord and Put God first usually have a blessing beyond anything possible without Him. Families that Pray together, stay together. Goes for those who study and have devotions together as well. To those who live it.
Actually most couples don't even give this a thought and some do little more than at best, start out this way. So realistically it is a good idea to be sure you have your education and be prepared to have an income level to be able to sustain yourself.

When two become one.
When a young couple gets married a little to early, well of course they believe they can live on love. Then in many cases comes debt. Of course "we will work this out together." Then when years go by and the stress of one or the other not spending on what is needed and not cutting back in areas not needed, well, tensions can become high and nerves strained. This is one of the many things that can put a strain on the living on love idea.
Romance is an area that comes easy for some in the beginning. Then with time it seems to drop off for most. The more successful ones keep this going in one way or another. Pretty mucy all it takes is for one to constantly keep it in mind when dealing with your mate, and continue coming up with ideas. The way you may do this is not by trying to out do yourself all the time but to just continually do things both on the spur of the moment, which can sometimes be silly little things, and to plan things as well, and it is possible to blend the silly little thinks with the longer range planed things. Put these in play at least once every other week. It helps to have a mate who is receptive to both and knows how to appreciate things. Without the latter, the former can in many cases be useless.

Mistakes: We all make em. Be sure to keep them to a minimum and keep them small. Don't make the first mistake marring a person because you don't want to let them get away. If you think by marring a person will keep you from loosing them, then think again. Just look at the court records. About all this will accomplish is getting feelings hurt when this expectation isn't met. If a relationship, or engagement can't last through time, what makes you think a marriage can. Once serious about each other, (not just one sided here) a period of about 18 months should be the least taken before tying the knot. If you have fear the relationship may not make it that long until you get married, then you better listen to that fear and can it now. During this 18 months get to know each other. Watch your mate for things like how they treat other people. For example, if you see your potential mate being hateful to waitresses etc. chances are, after the honeymoon is over, so to speak, you will see some of the same treatment for yourself, after some time and the newness has worn off.
Don't go in to a marriage or relationship expecting to be able to change your mate. It is possible for a person to change, but this usually has to come from within, and in more cases than not, it usually seems it must come after it is too late to be of benefit to the current relationship. These changes usually get incorporated in the "next" relationship.

By all means, when you are young, don't listen to your parents. When you are young, you always know more than an older person, and of course be sure to listen to the younger people who know as much as you do, and must really care for you more than your parents do and will really be there and truly care when and if all falls apart. Your parents couldn't possibly have your best interest at heart, and of course they are most always wrong. Or at least they could be this one time. I mean it is possible isn't it. Besides, parents are just mean people who are there just for the purpose of making your life miserable, aren't they?
Well, you probably get the picture, don't you?
When you are young, maybe you should be more skeptical when your parent is being more of a friend than a parent.

Since not listening to your parents is likely to be a priority, then make sure you check in to the percentage of live together relationships that go on to become a marriage that become successful verses the ones that don’t. Since there are so many that do this one would think that this is the way to go, because if everyone is doing it, well, it must be the thing to do. The bad news is that when a couple chooses to live together before getting married they fact is they cut their chances of a successful marriage dramatically. This is not just an older persons opinion, this is as the reality of life proves it to be. Anyone who has taken a statistics class and passed it should be able to figure their odds.
Unfortunately, when one is in love, the odds are a thing out there for someone else.

It is necessary for a young couple to make mistakes and hopefully learn from them. One of them shouldn’t have to be getting unnecessarily heavily in debt. When it comes to spending a large amount of cash it could be a good idea for a young couple to consult with someone on this first. And if it includes putting this debt on a credit card, you gotta get your head examined.
It’s amazing how many kids go get their self in debt and then expect, or are hopeful their parents will come bail them out. All a parent has to do to about guarantee the kids will not learn from the experience is to bail them out.

To be continued…..

The Right to Choose

2007-09-13T22:08:00.000-07:00

This was written several years ago by a young girl I admire, and is just as true today.

LIFE

The Right To Choose.....

Some people say that abortion is a woman's right to choose. But, finish the sentence. A woman's right to choose what? The right to choose whether an innocent child lives or dies? Those who support the abortion process present it as being justified. Justified? Killing an innocent child is justified?
In America more than 165,000 abortions are done yearly to babies in the second and third trimester. Roughly 90,000 are done at 13-15 weeks, 60,000 at 16-20 weeks, 15,000 at 21 or more weeks, 600 after 26 weeks (6 months old). Abortion is one of the few issues that has created immense division in the public of America.
PHYSICAL EFFECTS Abortion is a serious surgical procedure. The National Institute of Health says the death rate is at 30 per 100,000 that have one. Out of every 24 women, 1 has experienced immediate medical complications.
The women who have had a previous abortion have a 200% increased risk of miscarriage after two or more abortions. In fact, the infertility rate for 20-24 year olds has risen from 3.6% to almost 11% over the last number of years. The National Center for Health Statistics says there are 2 reasons.
1. Sexually transmitted diseases.
2. Injury inflicted during an abortion. PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS Post-abortion syndrome (PAS) is a syndrome where women start having psychological problems approximately 2 years after having an abortion. It is a fact that 10%-30% of women who had abortions experience long term psychiatric problems. In a 5-year study on women who had abortions, 25% sought out psychiatric care. The University of Minnesota studied the long-ranged affects of abortion on women. 10 years afterward they found:
• 81% of those women still had a preoccupation over that aborted child.
• 73% had flashbacks of their abortion experience.
• 69% still remember after the abortion the feeling that what they had done was insane!
• 54% still had nightmares.
• 35% said that sometime during that time, they perceived a visitation from that child!
• 96% regarded it as murder.
Think about what abortion is. It is killing an innocent child. Whether that baby is in the womb or not, it's alive. And Deuteronomy 19:10 says "That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee." Why would you want that innocent blood on your hands?
TRENDS
The new trend is to harvest aborted baby parts for research to help grown-ups. Think about that before you decide what should happen to that child. The table on this page is an actual price list for parts sold from aborted babies.

PRICE LIST FOR FETAL BODY PARTS

Unprocessed
Specimen
(8 weeks)

$70

Livers ( 8 weeks)

$15

Brains (8 weeks)

30% discount if significantly fragmented $999

Bone Marrow (8
weeks)

$250

Ears (8 weeks)

$75

Eyes (8 weeks)

$75

Pituitary Gland

$300

Spinal Cord

$325
For those who are parents or future parents, just imagine this: an unborn innocent child, YOUR child, sitting in heaven with God. Just watching you, wondering why you didn't want them, why you abandoned them. As easy as it is to brush off abortions by saying the child isn't alive, it is.
Once that child is conceived, it is alive. And abortion is something you have to live with for the rest of your life. Just ask someone who has had an abortion. They have had to live with that decision every day of their life. They have wondered every day what that child would have been like, and how it would have changed their lives. They have had to replay the scene
over and over in their head, asking why they made the decision in the first place.
Even if nobody else knows about it, God does, and so does your child. On judgment day, you will have to stand before God and your child and face judgment. Not a soul could say that they would not be absolutely ashamed to stand in front of God and explain why they shed the blood of one of his lambs. Why would anyone tear every limb from someone who hasn't even had the chance to take a glance at God's great earth, or breathe his glorious air?
Not only is the process of abortion dangerous and damaging, it's plain wrong. You should give the child a chance. You are the one who has to live with it, and face God with the blood of an innocent child on your hands. How could you be so cruel, that you wouldn't give your child a chance to live, when God has given you so many chances?
Abortion is a woman's right to choose. She can choose whether to murder, or raise her child. Most parents
love their children before they even open
their eyes to the world. Understand the
facts about abortions, take a look at this
picture, consider the alternatives, and then
decide.
*lt's YOUR child, YOUR choice, and
(Picture omitted as is graphic)
YOUR consequences. *
SOURCES:http://www.letusreason.org/Curren12.htm (site closed)

http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionPicture

Obamas retreat

2007-09-13T18:00:00.000-07:00

September 12, 2007
Obama: 'We have to begin to end this war now'
Sen. Barack Obama will lay out his plan to "turn the page" in Iraq.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - In what his campaign is billing as "a major national security address," Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will outline his plan today to end the war in Iraq and "his vision for what America can achieve once it turns the page" in that country.
Speaking at Ashford University this afternoon in Clinton, IA, the Illinois senator will detail a four-part plan to turn that page, according to excerpts of his speech made available to CNN.
1. "Immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year."
2. "Call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation."
3. "Use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact.”
4. "Take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of war crimes."
In advanced excerpts of his remarks, Obama, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, says the "bar for success" now in Iraq "is so low that it is almost buried in the sand… We've had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged."
"I opposed this war from the beginning," Obama says, according to the excerpts. "I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now."
–CNN Associate Producer Stephen Bach

Commentary:

1. "Immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year."

If it is time to pull out or Iraq without completing the task, then I see no reason to pull out two brigades a month. If we are going to tuck our tail between our legs and run, we need to get out now and all at once, or as soon as reasonably possible. I can’t imagine being in the last brigade or two left with a scheduled pull out of Iraq and insurgents closing in all around as we retreat. I see no where here any thought has been given as to what the cost is likely to be in pulling out either. I certainly understand the potential of saving as many as 1000 precious American lives in the immediate and short run, but what is the cost in the long run? Heads appear to be buried in the sand on that one.

2. “Call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq’s leaders reach a new accord or reconciliation.”

Well, if we pull out and abandon the people of Iraq, as we left the Shiites and Kurds in the first Gulf war, I think I can safely say we have no business calling for anything in Iraq, or telling them anything about what we think they should do. New constitutional conventions or anything else.

3. "Use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact.”

What kind of mumbo jumbo is this? So now we are going to come in and talk them to death. Well, from what I have seen from many of our politicians, that just might work. Seems to here anyway, but I really doubt that will work with al Qaeda and Muslim extremists we are dealing with in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran.

4. "Take immediate steps to confront the humanitarian disaster in Iraq, and to hold accountable any perpetrators of war crimes."
In advanced excerpts of his remarks, Obama, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, says the "bar for success" now in Iraq "is so low that it is almost buried in the sand… We've had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged."
"I opposed this war from the beginning," Obama says, according to the excerpts. "I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now."

There were already humanitarian disasters in Iraq while we were already doing nothing about it, which included, but not limited to, inserting people sometimes head first, sometimes feet first into wood chipper and plastic chipper machines while alive. About the only thing needed for these type of disasters is for good men to continue to do nothing, or in this case as proposed, go back to doing nothing again.
We have been holding perpetrators of war crimes accountable. Saddam Heusen and several of his cohorts have hanged, which would certainly not have happened had by standing by talking about it. It would not have happened as Obama is proposing if we were not there. Nor will this likely happen further as we pull out. This suggestion from Obama really seems to be real bunk.
I am glad Obama is against war. I would have to worry about anyone who is for war, and I imagine that most who are for war have never been in the thick of it. But sometimes it is necessary. It should never be entered into lightly. Sometimes just sitting back talking everyone to death, allows a bigger disaster to happen in the long run, as had been happening in Iraq already.
If you don’t take the battle to the enemy, the enemy will take the battle to you.
This is true if you are opposed to war or not.
David www.myspace.com/davidsmyplace