Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Goverment Efficiency

Some shining examples lately in the news about the efficiency and potentcy of our elected officials. Why people still think government is the answer is beyond me. Not only are they inept at their jobs, it appears the only thing elected officials can do is spend our tax dollars on absolutely worthless things.


And just a quick article about the coziness of the current administration and the press:


Tuesday, June 23, 2009

US Taxpayers Pay for Chinese Abortions

Great article here from Chuck Colson. It exposes the pro-"choice" movement as completely disingenueous.



Where's the Choice in This?
Funding UNFPA
June 23, 2009

Last year, a young Chinese woman—let’s call her Dan Li—ran afoul of the Chinese government. She had become "illegally pregnant." By the time the authorities found out, Dan Li was seven months along. Family planning officials tied her to a bed, induced labor, and, when the baby was born, killed the baby.

What happened to Dan Li is an abomination—one, however, that tragically takes place regularly in China. But now, thanks to the U.S. Congress, you and I will be
paying for it.

Last March, without fanfare, Congress passed a bill providing $50 million for the United Nations Population Fund. This organization promotes abortion around the globe—including in China. What makes the bill especially heinous is that it voided Kemp-Kasten, a bill which, for two decades, prevented our tax dollars from funding forced abortions and sterilization.

This blows the lid off the argument that abortion is all about giving a woman choice. If Congress really stands for choice, as they claim, why did they vote for coercion? If feminists are really for choice, why aren’t they fighting this law? Why isn’t our pro-choice President demanding that this brutalization of women be stopped?

Abortion is a glaring example of the difference worldview makes. Are all children—Chinese babies or inner-city African American babies—worthy of protection? Are babies just mouths to feed, and a strain on the environment—or are they potential producers and contributors? Do parents have the right under God to have as many children as they desire? Or should governments dictate this decision?

Let’s be clear: Coercive family planning is a humanitarian disaster.

Reggie Littlejohn is an expert on China’s "One Child" policy for a group called Human Rights Without Frontiers. She points to three negative outcomes of China’s policy.

First, "gendercide." Parents who are forced to limit their families to one child overwhelmingly abort girls. For every 120 boys born in China, there are only 100 girls born. So, since China’s "One Child" policy began in 1978, she writes, "400 million births" have been "prevented." That’s more than the current U.S. population.

Second, China’s gender imbalance "is a powerful, driving force behind trafficking in women and sexual slavery from nations surrounding China."

Third, according to the World Health Organization, China suffers the highest female suicide rate in the world—some 500 women per day. As Littlejohn notes, "Forced abortion traumatizes women. Could this high suicide rate be related to forced abortion?"

You and I need to let our friends and churches know about what Congress did—that their taxes being used by the UNFPA to support coercive family planning programs in China. According to Reggie Littlejohn, if there’s enough of an outcry, "Congress can pass an amendment blocking . . . funding from going to nations that practice coercive family planning."

Certainly pro-choicers would agree that women deserve better than to be hunted down and tied up while their babies are killed.

Global Warming Goodies II

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Busting Out the Old Saw

I was directed to classy journalistic piece of work on MSNBC today, done by Rachel Maddow. The whole piece was set out to dump on the "birthers", those who believe Barack Obama was not born an American citizen.

I noticed that they showed a "certificate of live birth" on the piece, but it was so fuzzy you could not see anything in detail. So I scoured the web a bit to see if I could find it. Sure enough, you can get a good look at it here. I have no idea whether Obama is an American born citizen or not, and I'm by no means a "certificate of live birth" expert, but I'd be willing to bet my life savings the document the Obama team provided is a fake.

Here are a few articles that do a little more in depth study of this certificate:

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

More Obamanomics

This first article says it well. Obama's economic policies are flying directly into the face recent studies and conventional wisdom. This article implies it is because Obama wants all business in America to fail so that the gov't will be forced to step in and rescue them.

Now a couple articles on his stimulus plan and its ability to "create or save" jobs. The Wall Street Journal does a great job of calling him out out on that point. There is no possible way to measure how many jobs were "saved", but no one in the media is pointing that out.

Here's an article about the press giving Obama a pass and never challenging him.

And here's one on how he's effectively cutting off all of America's home grown energy.

Friday, June 5, 2009

More Minnesota Shenannigans

The latest news out of Minnesota now is that potentially around 2,800 fellow Minnesotans who have passed away may have voted in this past election. The amount of deceit and deception that has gone on this past election is mind-numbing. The group Minnesota Majority has taken the lead on this story.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Obamanomics at Work

These two articles pretty much sum it up. Obama plans to spend more money this summer than originally planned in an effort to "stimulate" jobs and the economy. The only problem, evidence is showing that all this government meddling is doing just the opposite. Fiscal conseratives have been pounding that drum for months now.

Dick Morris, former President Clinton's right hand man, has his say about Obama's economic policies:

And lastly, and again, not surprising, Obama's tax increases appear to be moving jobs overseas.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

More on BHO

It appears that questions about Obama's background are flaring up in the media again. Mostly because it was taboo to use his middle name during the elections, but apparently now it is fashionable to call him Barack Hussein Obama.

Probably not a good thing when one of the worst dictators in the world thinks you're a socialist:

I'm a conspiracy theorist, so I tend not to think of this as an accident:

Monday, June 1, 2009

More of the Usual

Here is a rather lengthy speech that was given by former VP Cheney (referenced in the Weekly Standard piece above). I found it interesting to hear the argument from the former administrations point of view.