Conservatives are slowly losing the battle to protect marriage.  If we don’t change our tactics we will lose, not today or even tomorrow, but we will lose!

First, we must recognize where the battle is being waged and join this fight on the front lines in the public schools.   If you think your child’s school is safe from the effort to mainstream homosexuality than you simply haven’t been paying attention.  It begins in kindergarten and it continues through college and it is more intense with every passing year.

It crept in more than three decades ago through sex education when books like “Changing Bodies; Changing Lives” were introduced.

Most people are neither “all straight” or  “all gay.”  It helps to picture a line with “gay” on one side and “straight” on the other.

It then encourages young people to experiment to find out where they belong.

The push to normalize homosexuality began in earnest with AIDS education.  Now, it is difficult to find a subject where our children are not given this message.

It is to the point that, last year, gay columnist Daniel Villarreal asks his collages to just admit that the goal is “to indoctrinate kids.”  Said Villarreal, “We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”

The nation’s largest teachers union is squarely behind him.  Last summer, at the annual meeting of the National Education Association, it passed no less than 12 resolutions aimed at mainstreaming homosexuality.

It is not an accident that most school board elections are held in off years when turnouts are low.  Conservative Christians rarely show up at the polls for these elections.  They either can’t be bothered or are unaware of how important they are.

We teach our kids to play fair and then we send them to school.  For the next 12 to 16 years, they are taught that homosexuality is normal, that some people are born that way (an unproven assertion) and that this is a natural behavior.   Now, their mean old parents tell them that they ought to deny homosexual couples the right to get married.  How cruel is that?

The argument that marriage has always been between a man and a woman and ought to stay that way doesn’t cut it anymore.  Our young people need the facts and they need to know why marriage is recognized by both church and state.  Then, and only then, can they make a reasonable decision to uphold it.

In a religious union, a couple comes together to make a vow before God to live together as man and wife until death.  Since homosexuality is condemned in the strongest terms by all major religions, a homosexual marriage sanctioned by the church is a departure from scripture and an attempt to “feel good” at best.

The state recognizes marriage for more practical reasons.  Statistics consistently show that a committed relationship between a man and a woman is the best environment to produce and nurture productive citizens for the future. Therefore, the state has an interest in encouraging these unions.   The state recognized that it costs money to raise children so it put a hedge of protection around the family unit.

Certainly, some marriages are childless.  However, the overwhelming majority of married couples support or have supported children.  Despite all the media hype, statistics show that the overwhelming majority of homosexual unions do not have children.   Hard cases make bad law or, in this case, public policy.

If states legalize or recognize homosexual marriages, then that hedge of protection moves. Taxpayers in traditional marriages will be footing the bill for the health insurance of the homosexual partners of government workers along with a host of other benefits and tax exemptions.  Also, private businesses will be forced to adjust their overall pay scales downward in order to compensate for these benefits.

When any two (or more) people can marry, then marriage has no meaning.  When everyone is inside the hedge, the hedge becomes meaningless.

You cannot elevate homosexual unions without lowering the hedge of protection placed around the traditional family. The real questions are these: Has the traditional family outlived its usefulness?  Should society remove the hedge?

The president has made it clear that he is running, not against Mitt Romney, but against Paul Ryan’s budget, which Mr. Romney has embraced.  Obama and his minions are making the case that  if Mr. Romney is smart he will do his best to distance himself from Ryan’s “heartless” approach.  Furthermore, they warn that Romney’s biggest mistake would be to make the chairman of the House Budget Committee his running mate.

As in Hamlet, methinks they do protest too much!  What they really fear, is a Romney – Ryan ticket.  It would be the Democrats’ worst nightmare!

Romney will have an uphill battle if Democrats can make him feel he will be safe with any other running mate because he will spend the remainder of the election cycle defending himself against the Ryan budget.

The best defense is a good offense.  With Ryan by his side, Romney’s on offense.  Game on!

As for diversity, Ryan has it in spades.  Forget the racial-gender thing.  Ryan is an “everyman” or “everywoman.”

While Romney comes from wealth, Ryan reeks of middle class.

While Romney is all spit and polish, Ryan always appears slightly disheveled.

You may agree or disagree with Romney’s position on the issues.  However,  Romney’s business acumen and personal life make him someone you would admire.  Ryan is someone you would invite home to dinner.

While Romney is cool and can be detached, Ryan is warm and fuzzy.

While Romney is accused of trying to avoid the hard issues, Ryan runs right at them with guns blaring.

While Romney has been short on specifics, Ryan dots all the “i’s “and crosses the “t’s.”

Many fear that Romney is too moderate.  Obama and company tell us that Ryan is too conservative.

Romney was the governor of liberal Massachusetts.  Ryan was a speech writer for Jack Kemp and staff director for Senator Sam Brownback.

Romney is at home at a polo match.  Ryan is at home in a sleeping bag.

Romney is a Mormon and doesn’t like to talk about his religion.  Ryan is a Catholic and makes the case that his faith directly shapes his views on public policy.   That was evident last week when he went to Georgetown and took on the ideology of the ultra-liberal Jesuit professors.

Romney is long on experience.  Ryan is youthful and energetic.  At 42, he is 8 ½ years younger than our “hip” president.

While Romney is an executive capable of making big decisions, Ryan is a number cruncher who is ready with the facts and figures.  He will backup — not upstage — the man at the top of the ticket.

Yes, the best way to fight Obama’s attacks on Ryan is with Ryan.  Why use a surrogate when you can have the real deal?

While most vice presidents have been inconsequential while in office, a few have played major roles in their administrations.   Dick Cheney proved to be an invaluable asset when the country was in the post 9-11 crisis.  Paul Ryan will be an invaluable asset as the country faces an even greater crisis – one that threatens to bankrupt the country and leave us vulnerable to our debtors and our enemies.

While Obama and Biden have virtually no “real world” experience, Romney ran Bain Capital and Ryan worked as a marketing consultant for a construction firm founded by his great-grandfather.

Romney is a turnaround expert.  This is the ultimate turnaround.

Ryan has a degree in economics.  He managed to bypass the old boy network in the House and become chairman of the Budget Committee because of his business background.

Obama and Biden will try to make this an election about personalities.  It should be about who has the ideas necessary to keep us from going over an economic cliff from which there is no return.

Do we take more from hard-working taxpayers in order to further expand the central government?  Do we put our trust in Washington or in the free market?  Do we give the power to the bureaucrats or return it to individuals, families and local communities?

Win or lose, no one doubts that Romney and his family will be just fine.  Meanwhile, Ryan will be running like someone whose life, and the life of his family, depends on the outcome  . . .  because it does.

The brain thrust behind this shameless publicity stunt was Faith Aloud, which is run by, among others, the infamous late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart.  It bills itself as “a pro-choice religious organization which seeks to eliminate the stigma associated with abortion and sexuality, and to provide support to both women and providers.”

The campaign ended Friday, so I called Faith Aloud to find out about the results of that effort.  The woman on the other end of the phone was speechless. “What do you mean by ‘results’?” she asked.

Prayer changes things.  Any true believer is aware of that.  Books have been written and movies made of modern-day miracles that are the result of the sincere, fervent prayers of the saints, but you need go no further than the Bible, God’s revealed word to mankind.  It’s full of examples.

The 40 Days of Life, which ended a few weeks earlier, and appears to be the blueprint for Faith Aloud’s nugatory campaign, reports that at least 668 babies are known to have been spared from abortion during its prayer vigil. Reports are still coming in from local teams around the world.

So, what about those results from Faith Aloud?   “What can you report?” I pressed.  She thought for a moment and then said, “Our message is just supposed to be supportive.  We don’t look for statistics.”  Oh!

Here is the harsh reality: In 2008 (most recent data available) approximate 1.2 million babies were killed by abortion.  Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider reports that first-trimester, in clinic abortions cost between $300 to $950.  That means the average cost is around $650 for a first trimester abortion.  However, approximately 10 percent of abortions are late-term and the costs increase dramatically.

As you can see, abortion is well-over a billion dollar a year industry.

For all the emphasis on prayer, Faith Aloud is short on scripture.  One reference on its blog is to a passage on speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:15:  “If I pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also.”  The blog’s author asserts  that this proves “God trusts us to make moral decisions and impart our needs and desires to him through prayer.”   In other words, set our own standards.   Oh, really?

In John 14:23, Jesus says, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love Him and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.”  There are similar statements in John 14:15 and John 15:10.  As for answered prayer, Jesus was specific, “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish and it shall be done for you.”

What did Jesus ask us to do?  Give, forgive, deny yourself, resist temptation and to love as He loved.

In 1994, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., Mother Teresa spelled it out for President Bill Clinton and the others in attendance.

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.  This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

God gave us a set of 10 Commandments which are non-negotiable.   Among them: “Thou shall not murder.”  Murder is taking the life of an innocent human being. We now know that every abortion kills a child with a beating heart and brain waves.

Abortion proponents like to refer to a child in the womb as “a developing human being.”  They fool no one.   That term applies to each and every one of us.

The purpose of prayer is not to get God to do our bidding but to conform our will to His.

Faith Aloud was created for one purpose: To try to ease the consciences of people of faith who are looking for an easy way out of their unplanned pregnancies and those who profit from those bad decisions.

In my years of working with women (Christian and non-Christian) who have had abortions, I learned they fall into one of two categories: those who regret their decisions and those who will.

God will forgive any sin we earnestly confess.  Unfortunately, the pain from those decisions remains.

There isn’t as much laughter now from the college set and just being a cool dude who loves basketball isn’t going to be enough to impress the 18-29 crowd this time around.  Many of those voters have grown too weary looking for work to be swayed by his youthful appearance or empty promises about “hope and change” because most have neither.

A college degree used to be a ticket to a high-paying job.  That is no longer the case.  One out of every two of today’s college grads is either unemployed or underemployed.   The prospects for those without a college degree are even bleaker.

Young college graduates are now heavily represented in jobs that only require a high school diploma or less, such as waiter, cashier, store clerk, barista or bartender.  Where does that leave the less educated who would normally be expected to fill those jobs?   Out of luck.

In this sluggish economy, those college grads are unlikely to move up to a job where they can begin paying off their student loans.   This is where Obama sees an opening.

In 2007, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill temporarily lowering student loan interest rates to 3.4 percent from 6.8 percent.   Those rates are scheduled to go back up on July 1.

While Republican leaders are open to keeping the rates low until the economy improves, they insist they must be paid for with offsetting cuts.  Unfortunately, Obama hasn’t paid for anything since assuming the presidency and he is unlikely to start now.

That’s why we are printing money and borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend and leaving the debt for these young people to pay.

One of the primary purposes of college is to teach you to think.  We are about to find out if higher education is still capable of delivering on that promise.

Young people who can think for themselves will soon realize that when Obama hands them something with one hand, he is stabbing them in their backs with the other.

Let’s start with Obamacare, his signature accomplishment.   Under the so-called Affordable Care Act, young people now are allowed to remain on  their parents’ insurance plans until they reached the ripe old age of 27.

Is that an advantage?

Not really.  Young jobless adults still living at home are being taken care of by mother and daddy. Whether they are on their family’s health insurance or not is a moot point.  Mother and daddy are going to pay for their  health insurance whether it’s in one or two policies.

Health insurance was super cheap for young adults because they use so little of it.  Not anymore!   One of the goals of Obamacare was to make everyone equal.   Isn’t that sweet?

However, in practical terms, it means that responsible young adults who are in the job market and out on their own in this big bad world now are faced with much higher premiums.  That is because Obamacare limits the insurers’ ability to offer lower premiums to these low-risk enrollees so that older, wealthier adults can pay less.  What’s fair about that?

These young people are expected to subsidize, not only older, wealthier people, but irresponsible people who didn’t take health insurance when they were young and now have a – you guessed it – pre-existing condition.

Young people have tender hearts and may ask, “Is it fair to leave those people with pre-existing conditions without insurance?”  No, but it is fair to “rate” them and expect them to pay higher premiums now because they got a free ride when they were young and healthy.

And, so it goes with Obama and liberal Democrats who reward bad behavior in the name of “fairness” and play the politics of envy and greed.  Yes, let’s impose job-killing higher taxes on the job creators so the rest of us can feel better about it while standing in the unemployment lines!

My guess is just enough of our young people will figure it out in time to help elect Romney, a man (admittedly a little dull and boring) who has spent most of his life in business and knows how to create jobs, as president instead of a “Mr. Cool” who is simply promising them free stuff.

If not, they better get used to saying, “Would you like fries with that?”

Although the Easter bonnet has gone out of fashion, the custom of wearing new clothes on Easter is still going strong.

Retailers experience a bonanza in the runup to Easter.  The National Retail Federation  predicts that each person celebrating the holiday will spend a whopping $145.28 in 2012.  That’s up 10.9% from 2011, and nearly 25% higher than the depths of the recession in 2009.

While the lion’s share of Easter spending will go for candy and food, the NRF’s survey revealed that fully one-half those polled say they are taking advantage of the Easter sales to buy new spring clothing.

Some of my earliest memories of this Christian holiday involved the clothes.  Although my family was of modest means, everything I wore on Easter was brand spanking new from head to toe.  My mom made sure of it.

The Easter dress couldn’t be just any old dress.  It had to be something special with extra frills, lace and ruffles.  One dress I remember, in particular, had a matching parasol.  There was no Easter parade in my little town, no formal judging, but there was an unofficial competition among the mothers to have the best dressed daughter in church that morning.

In fact, I am ashamed to admit that, back then,  for most of us, Easter Sunday was more about how one looked on the outside, then what was going on inside.  It still is.  Today, in the runup to Easter, most of us spend a lot more time on the physical preparation than we do on the spiritual.

Ever wonder how God feels when He sees all those people, in their new finery,  in church on Easter Sunday whose primary purpose is to see and be seen?  We don’t have to wonder.   In Matthew 23, Jesus chastised the scribes and Pharisees for much the same thing.  He called them “hypocrites” and said they were “like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.”

Holidays are an important time for families and traditions are important.  Nothing wrong with that.  However, the purpose of observing this holiday is to remember the sacrifice Jesus made in order to give us the greatest gift anyone could possibly imagine.
Our God is a holy God.  Sin separates us from God.  (Romans 6:23)  There are none who are righteous enough to enter into His presence on their own. (Romans 3:23)  Therefore, Jesus, who knew no sin, became the sacrificial Passover lamb, paying the ultimate price for our sins so that we might live forever with Him.  Because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, we can stand before God without spot or blemish.  That is what is symbolized by the wearing of new clothes.

However, that is not the end of it.  In order to accept this gift, we must die to ourselves and allow Jesus to live through us (some people try to do the former without the latter).  That means giving up our own desires in order to exchange them for His. That can be a scary thought.  That is why many people hold back.  “What if God steps on my plans?  Is He going to spoil all my fun?  What if He asks for something that I’m not willing to give?”

Many go to church, read the Bible and, like those scribes and Pharisees, hold to a form of godliness and expect that to do it.
Do you “outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness”?  I know what it’s like to hold back.  I was in that place for far too long.

Jesus said, “I have come that you might have life and have it more abundantly,” John 10:10.  He also said, “My yoke is easy.  My burden is light,” Matthew 11:30.  Somehow I had missed those points.

This year, in your Easter preparation, take time to do the work that is truly important, the work that begins within.  Then, and only then, will you understand what it is like to truly experience a joyous Easter and the abundant life.

.

It isn’t as tantalizing as those racially-charged protests over the death of  Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.  It isn’t as emotional as those Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of ObamaCare.  Nevertheless, it is vitally important to the future of our country and will have an impact on each and every one of us.

It’s the annual battle over the federal budget which will be argued on the floor of the House of Representatives Wednesday and decided – for better or worse – on Thursday.

Don’t nod off on me.  There are a few important things that every citizen should know.

All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives.  That is because your member of the House is your closest link to Washington.  He (or she) must stand for reelection every other year so that he can be held accountable.  We are supposed to watch our representatives, weigh in on these matters and put them on notice when they fail to keep the nation’s books balanced and under control.

Does that sound like a pipe dream?  It reality it is because we citizens have grown lazy.  Most people don’t even understand the process.

The budget plan that will be adopted is not unlike the budget plan worked out of the kitchen tables of average families.  It is a broad outline of spending for the coming year.  You know what revenues will be coming in and you work out your spending accordingly.

Unfortunately, our representatives work out the budget by adding to the nation’s credit card.  This has to stop!

The plan that will likely be adopted is the plan worked out by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.  It is the plan favored by the Republican leadership.  The Ryan budget has been described as “harsh,” “draconian,” and a “reverse Robin Hood” by Democrats who want to go on piling up red ink as far as the eye can see.  It has been described as “reasonable”   “balanced” and “an important first step toward balancing the budget” by Republicans who want to hold the line somewhat, but not rock the boat.

None of these descriptions are adequate or accurate.  No doubt you have heard that the Ryan budget would cut the deficit and roughly $5 trillion in spending over the next decade.  Don’t get excited!

The first thing you need to know is the difference between cutting the deficit and the national debt.  Unfortunately, most people think they are one and the same.  When they hear politicians talk about cutting the deficit, they automatically think we will begin to live within our means and begin paying off our behemoth national debt.

Nothing could be further from the truth!  When you hear national debt, think of a chocolate cake.  The deficit is the icing, or the amount of our overspending, that we keep piling on top of that cake year after year.

The Ryan Budget outline would spend $5.3 trillion less than the budget offered by President Obama (which will never be passed) but 10 years down the road, we will still be spending $287 billion more than we take in.  This is shameful!

While there are many needed reforms in the Ryan budget, it is hardly draconian!  In reality, it is a mere baby step down the road to fiscal sanity.

When you hear it is spending trillions less than Obama, remember Obama’s new budget would raise spending from today’s $3.8 trillion to $5.8 trillion in 2022.

There will be many budget proposals offered on the House floor over the next two days. House Democrats will offer one that would add $6 trillion in deficits over 10 years, compared to the $6.4 trillion in deficits proposed by President Obama and the $3.1 trillion in deficits proposed by Mr. Ryan.

The only truly responsible budget plan that will come up for a vote is from the Republican Study Committee (a coalition of conservative House members).  It would spend $7.5 trillion less than President Obama, offers much needed reforms but, more importantly, actually balances the nation’s books (ends all deficit spending) in five years.  This is the one that deserves your wholehearted support.

If you care about your children and the future of this country, now is the time to weigh in with your congressman.

Don’t be lulled to sleep by headlines that you can do nothing about. Leave the Trayvon Williams case to law enforcement and ObamaCare to the Supreme Court.   Invest in a phone call to Washington that can make a real difference.

Newt’s latest far-flung theory has him combining forces with Rick Santorum (who doesn’t want his help) to deny the evil Darth Vader, a.k.a. Mitt Romney,  the nomination which, in Newt speech, would save “western civilization” as we know it.

Newt’s grandiose plan has Romney a few delegates shy of winning the nomination, due in large part to his own cleverness.  Newt enters an open convention as the underdog but, somewhere between ballots, the delegates have an epiphany and see the light.  They recognize that he is the “only candidate who can effectively debate Barack Obama” and that his third wife is the only one pretty enough to be first lady.  Therefore, they anoint him their leader and a united GOP leaves Tampa worshiping at his feet.

There are a couple of things wrong with his theory.  First, despite his ability to pontificate on any subject at a moment’s notice, when he was a front-runner in Florida and everything was on the line, Newt lost the Tampa debate to Romney, who is mediocre at best.  Why?   His past caught up with him and he lost all wiggle room.

While Newt may be the better debater on issues, his past would be “the issue.”  Should Gingrich be the nominee, the campaign would be about his many flip-flops, moral flaws, leadership failure as Speaker and his role with Freddie Mac.

Despite his many campaign appearances and television interviews, we still don’t know why a “historian” received $1.6 million “not to lobby” for the quasi-government agency at the very epicenter of the housing crisis which lead to the Great Recession.  Yes, I know Newt is the greatest historian who ever lived but, even at that, $1.6 million is a steep price to pay for a little background information.

The second problem with this theory is his wife, Callista.  He uses her in his campaign stops like a redneck uses a bobblehead doll on the dashboard to say “Look at her.  This is who I really am, sleek, slim and flawless.”

I’m not saying that Newt believes he is a woman, but he believes that putting her on the platform next to him at every campaign stop and in camera range before every speech, actually helps.    He sees her as the next Jacqueline Kennedy, whose presence helped propel JFK to the White House.

Unfortunately, when people see Callista, they are not reminded of Jackie.  They are reminded of Newt’s moral failings.  Yes, the nation accepted a divorced president in Ronald Reagan but it was Reagan’s first wife, Jane Wyman, who wanted the split.  Reagan met Nancy a year after Wyman filed for divorce.  We have never knowingly put an adulteress in the White House.

For all his smarts, Newt simply doesn’t get that parading a third wife, with whom he had an affair for six years while claiming the moral high ground as speaker of the House, doesn’t help.  Nor does the fact that she is the age of his daughters.   Then, there are her wardrobe and jewelry which are enough to make the well-heeled, fashionista Nancy Pelosi jealous.  It reminds us of his six figure charge account at Tiffany’s as he tries to paint Romney as the one who is out of touch with the common man.

Yes, it is a little past time for the curtain to come down gracefully on the Gingrich campaign, but there will still be some applause if he exits now and doesn’t drag it out any longer.

Michele Bachmann recognized the obvious after a disappointing finish in Iowa. Her exit was well-timed and magnanimous.   She said, “Last night, the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice, and so I have decided to stand aside . . .  if we are going to repeal Obamacare, turn our country around, and take back our country, we must do so united. I believe we must rally around the person that our country and our party and our people select to be that standard-bearer.”

By making that speech, she retained both her dignity and her political capital.  If Gingrich fails to leave now, he will lose both.

Monday’s ruling, blocking a Texas law requiring voters to show a photo ID, should be the last in a very large pile of “last straws.”  A few months ago, the same Holder Injustice Department blocked a similar requirement in the state of South Carolina.

Why?  Injustice says this requirement places an undue burden on minorities.  How so? 

To date, 31 states have enacted voter ID requirements.  Fifteen require a photo ID.  All states should make this a requirement.
At the present time,  you cannot board a plane, open a checking account, buy a gun, use a charge card, get a hotel room, buy certain cold medication, enter a government building and — in most states — apply for government benefits, without a photo ID.

Why would anyone think that one’s right to vote should receive less scrutiny than is required for buying cold medicine?

Why would anyone even question a law that requires a photo ID to vote . . . unless, of course, he had a vested interest in undermining the most scared right of a  citizen?

The Holder Injustice Department is preventing the implementation of these laws in Texas and South Carolina because of an arcane provision in Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  It requires certain states to get “preclearance” of any voting change from the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at Justice or a federal court in the District of Columbia.   This was originally passed as an emergency five-year provision to remedy voter discrimination in the south.  It has long outlived its usefulness but, since it was never repealed, it has allowed Holder to work his mischief.

These decisions from Injustice violate both its own precedent as well as the findings of federal courts that voter ID requirements are nondiscriminatory and not a burden on voters.

Is the Obama Administration so afraid of losing the 2012 election that it has devised a grand scheme to sway the election in its favor in these two southern states?     It looks bad and smells worse.

Eric Holder is the same attorney general who dropped a clear case of voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party for its conduct during the 2008 election for “lack of evidence,” even though none of the parties appeared in court to contest the charges.  There was film of two of its members outside one polling place in paramilitary uniforms, one carrying a billy club.

This is the same attorney general who, in the wake of the Operation Fast and Furious  gunwalking scandal, proved his incompetence and/or deliberately lied to Congress.

This is the same attorney general who refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.  Justice demands all laws be defended.

This is the same Eric Holder, who has packed the Civil Rights division at Injustice with hack lawyers from radical organizations like the ACLU and the NAACP.  These organizations consistently lost their voter ID cases in court and now are imposing their will on us.

Thanks to the numerous  FOIA requests from Pajama Media, I am able to offer the two deputy chiefs of the Voting Rights Section at Injustice as Exhibit Number One:   Brian Sells and Meredith Bell-Platts, put in place by Holder, have worked a combined 20 years to undermine voter ID laws.  But there are many, many more Holder hires that are cut from the same ugly cloth.

To be sure, Texas and South Carolina will have their day in court, but it will come after the 2012 election has been put to bed. This is an outrage!

Congress should repeal the arcane provision of our law that requires certain states to go begging at Justice before they can strengthen their voting requirements.

In addition, one of these things must happen immediately:

1. Eric Holder resigns.
2. President Obama fires him
3. Congress begins impeachment proceedings against Holder

Politicians of all political stripes are reluctant to rock the boat.  None of our elected representatives are going to act until we demand it. They will continue to hold hearings and make speeches until we are lulled to sleep from sheer boredom.  These hearings don’t mean a thing unless they are followed to the next step, impeachment.

How long are you willing to sit quietly and allow your vote to be undermined?

Meanwhile, virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media,  two Australian college professors, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, set off a firestorm of worldwide proportions by arguing for legalized infanticide.

Fluke’s appearance was a cheap publicity stunt, little more than a pep rally for President Obama’s plan to force religious institutions to cover contraceptives even if it violates their moral principles.

Meanwhile, the Giubilini and Minerva pronouncement, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” received the blessings of the scientific community when it was published online by the British Journal of Medical Ethics.  Certainly, the Giubilini and Minerva peer-reviewed article deserved more coverage than Fluke’s pathetic drivel that couldn’t pass the laugh test, but it was largely ignored by all but religious publishers and columnists

Too bad.  These issues are strangely related and are as ominous and they are absurd.  Fluke is a long time abortion-rights advocate.  Now that abortion has fallen out of favor, abortion activists don’t call themselves that anymore.  It’s all about “reproductive rights.”

I offer NARAL and RCAR as examples.  The National Abortion Rights Action League is now the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and the Religious Coalition of Abortion Rights is now the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.  Sounds much more reasonable doesn’t it?

We now know that Fluke is not just another college coed.  She is a hardened, battle-tested activist and president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice who specifically targeted Georgetown.

Let’s be clear: The only reproductive rights all of these people really care about is the right to kill unborn babies.   Birth control hasn’t been an issue in this country for at least a 100 years now.   It’s a smoke screen to cover up the real agenda.  They lose when they talk about abortion so now they are trying to make a nonissue — birth control —  the issue.

Fluke is the poster child/woman for those who are promoting the idea that sexual activity has no consequences.  They want us to believe that copulation has no more implication than that of a handshake, if the shakee agrees.

Meanwhile, when birth control fails (or, more likely, forgotten)  abortion is the fallback position and Giubilini and Minerva ask us to look at the logical conclusion of where this leads.  If a child can be killed months, weeks or seconds before birth with impunity, why not after birth?

Life is a continuum.  Nothing magical happens to the child during that short trip down the birth canal.    Therefore, the authors argue, “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

The authors prefer the term “after-birth abortion” to infanticide (which is practiced in China and India) or euthanasia (which is practiced in Holland).   They reject infanticide because they contend that “the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus,” rather than that of an older child  and that euthanasia is not relevant because “the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice.”

If abortions are legal for any reason — and they are here in the U.S.  – the authors contend that a parent has the right to have her infant or very young child killed after birth for any reason, such as the death of a spouse, the disruption of the family, or merely the belief that the parent would have a better life if the child were not present.

The idea that personhood should not be granted until sometime after birth, until the child can “measure up” to society’s standards, is not new.  Peter Singer (Princeton), Virginia Abernethy (formally of Vanderbilt) and  Michael Tooley (University of Colorado) have all made that argument.

However, Giubilini and Minerva go even further and contend that if you follow the logic for abortion, than parents should have the right to kill their perfectly healthy children and a respected medical journal now has legitimized this view.  Doesn’t this, at the very least, deserve the same amount of coverage as the Sandra Fluke debacle?

We can continue to hide behind the semantics used by the pro-abortion (i.e., reproductive rights) crowd or we can face the slippery slope we are now on and say, “Enough!”

 
Gingrich, though a great idea man, blew it when he became Speaker of the House.  He squandered the Republican revolution he led and punished conservatives who stood by their principles. Then, there are his serial moral failings.

Ron Paul is right on economic and constitutional issues, but his positions on foreign policy scare me to death.

Santorum is a good man even though he often went along to get along with George W. Bush when Bush was increasing the size of government and spending us into oblivion.  My biggest problem with Santorum, however,  is that he has never run a business.  

That should be a prerequisite for anyone seeking public office.  How can anyone hope to run the country who has never run so much as a lemonade stand, who has never met a payroll or been in the difficult position of having to fire someone?

Romney, on paper, is an ideal candidate. He is a moral man and has been a near-perfect son, husband and father.  He is a man with deep religious convictions (though not the religion of most Americans).   Nevertheless, Mormons share our Judeo-Christian values.

Romney spent 2 1/2 years on the mission field for his church.   He gives generously to charity.  He could have relied on his inheritance but, no, Romney gave that away as well.  He is an extremely wealthy man but he gained his wealth by his own hard work and ingenuity.

Romney built and led a highly successful business and has led a state.   He took over the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics and turned the Salt Lake City games into a financial success.  He gave all the money he made from the Olympics to charity.
What is not to like?  Why is this man not the “perfect” candidate?

His biggest problem is his perfectionism.  It is not that he is perfect.   He is too perfect, too guarded  to be real.  He will not let us see the real Mitt Romney or get a glimpse of his struggles and failings that are part of every human life.   That is a characteristic of the Mormon experience.  There is no room for failure, or at least none that can be admitted.

That is why there has been no backing away from Romneycare or any other issue where he will flat-out admit, “I was wrong.”  This attitude has turned off a lot of people who would otherwise be in his camp.

Recently, two people I know well related their unpleasant encounters with Romney to me.  The first works on Capitol Hill.   The other lives on the west coast and is a supporter of conservative causes.   In both meetings, Romney was questioned about some of the positions he took while governor of Massachusetts.  Instead of answering their questions, he flew into a rage. That is not the way to win friends or votes!

We saw an inkling of this in the last debate hosted by CNN’s  John King.  When faced with a simple question he didn’t like, Romney refused to give an answer.  “You get to ask the questions you want.  I get to give the answer (or not) I want,” he snipped.

But, perhaps Romney’s biggest problem is the fact that he spent most of his life in Massachusetts.  He appears to be running — not for president of the United States — but for president of Massachusetts.   The country is a center-right country.  He doesn’t get that.

While the economy is the central issue in the campaign, Romney’s failure to address his coziness with the gay rights movement is troubling.  His failure to stake out a straightforward position on this issue in terms of marriage, the military and even the Boy Scouts of America is a big problem, not only with Christians like me, but with others.

He is for traditional marriage but supports domestic partnerships that have all the privileges and benefits of marriage.  He supports “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” for the military but would not go back to this policy now that Obama has allowed those who practice homosexuality to serve openly.  He supports the Boy Scouts’ “right” to exclude homosexuals but thinks it is wrong.

He is too clever by half and this is why the majority of voters don’t trust him.  On paper he is the best candidate, but we need a real candidate with solid convictions, not a cardboard cutout.