Posts Tagged ‘Media’

An appeal to my reasonable conservative friends:

Important: if you are not reasonable and open-minded, don’t read any further. I’m not looking for “zots.” I’m looking for reasonable people who are serious about making the right choice. When I know I’ve chosen wisely, I feel at peace, without doubt in my mind, and start to get excited – like Chrissy Mathews, I get “that tingle.” How do you feel when you know you’ve made the right choice?

At this point, you’ve been following the primary race for months, and that means you are looking to make the right choice. Are you aware of how important making the right choice is in this primary process? I agree, and that’s why it is important to keep an open mind. That’s why you’ve read this far, so you might as well hear me out.

Obama has made it clear that he is pinning his reelection efforts on class warfare. So, think about whom you would want the GOP nominee to be if you were Obama, and you needed a target for class warfare? I agree – Mitt Romney. Understand that Obama uses Alinsky tactics, and Alinsky tactic 13 is “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Simply put, it is much easier to attack an organization or an idea if you can ‘put a face on it’. If you can find a single individual who both represents your opponent, and who, given the right spin, can be portrayed as the face of evil, you can use this person as a proxy for your attacks on your adversary. What face would you put on the 1%? Mitt Romney.

You may think that Mitt Romney is a great guy, and a great example of success, and I agree with some of that (and certainly applaud his success), and I would add that you should have no doubt in your mind that this is exactly what Obama will do (stick a big, fat 1% on him), and you can imagine that he is licking his chops in anticipation of doing it. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, this is what the general election will look like. Click Here. No matter what he says or how well he says it, he will not be able to shake that label. How does that make you feel about Mitt? And it doesn’t help that he has a habit of making mistakes and saying the wrong thing. Click here. Even Romney booster John McCain no longer believes Romney can win. Click Here. Moving on.

Obama’s second trick is throwing “red meat” distractions to keep us from discussing the areas where he is most vulnerable, such as economic and foreign policy. The biggest distraction so far has been the contraception controversy. And Rick Santorum took the bait- big time. Rick Santorum is a great father with great moral values, but he is also a one trick pony. Social issues are important, but he just can’t stop talking about them, and that has gotten him in a ton of trouble. The issue isn’t that he talks a lot about social policy, the issue is that he just can’t change gears quickly enough to avoid the damage caused by Obama’s intentional deceptions and sleights-of-hand. Consider how many distractions Obama will throw out there if Rick is the nominee. We’ll be talking about birth control all the way through November. By the time Rick manages to shift the debate back to Obama’s weak points, it may be too late.

Rick also tends to make serious, and very public, mistakes. For example, he loses his cool very quickly. Click Here. Cringing? He also gets confused regularly – in this instance, he gives Obama credit for CREATING jobs, publicly, on CNN! Click here. Just imagine if he makes even ONE mistake like this in the months between the nomination and the general election. Understand the very real risk with Rick. How do you feel about that, given the stakes?

Please understand that all of this is just fact, and I understand that some of you will now feel a bit disturbed and unsure at this point. But, I digress.

Newt is a flawed man, but recognize that his flaws are less subject to substantive attack. For example, Freddie and Fannie? It may be a big deal in the Republican primary, but Democrats do NOT want to go there! Yes, he’s had multiple marriages, but how many times has Rush been married? Do you still listen to Rush, at least here and there? And, of course, Democrats cannot launch credible attacks on the subject of adultery – we can go there. Before I close, I urge you to do one thing, and one thing only… please watch this video – click here. You’ve read this far, so another minute or two won’t kill you. Click here. Now, how do you feel about this man going up against Barack Obama?

The above letter from J.M. Stein at Red Side of Life is so good, as is, that I chose not to break up his text with my comments.

Indeed, Stein makes a very compelling case. But if there is still any doubt in your mind, please consider a few additional facts:

  • Besides the “1%er” card that Stein says will be played against Romney, the Democrats also have their old favorite: the race card. Mitt is a very committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka the Mormons, and until 1978, Mormon theology relegated blacks to a kind of second-class membership in the church. After considerable social and political pressure, the church’s “living prophet” declared a new “revelation” changing the previous position which had been held since the church’s inception. Already, many on the Left are raising a stink about this. We can be sure that if Mitt were the nominee, this ugly issue would only get uglier — much uglier. The Democrat-Media Complex will make sure of that.
  • The issue of contraception is problematic for Santorum not only for the reason Stein explains — namely, that the Left is skillfully and shamelessly using it to sidetrack discussion away from Obama’s staggering malfeasances in both foreign and domestic policy — but also because the driving force behind Obama is the “Shadow Party” funded by George Soros, who has an obsession with population control. Soros and other Agenda 21 promoters believe that world population must be reduced by literally billions of people. Santorum, the father of seven children — one of whom has Trisomy-18, a genetic disorder for which many Leftists believe abortion to be the only appropriate response — has the Left’s bull’s-eye on his back.
  • The Left surely will demonize Newt just as viciously as they would Romney or Santorum. That’s what the Left does — to anyone who opposes them. A key difference, however, is that Newt fights back. Like the late, great Andrew Breitbart, Newt is a “happy warrior” who both understands the Left, and loves taking them on. Plus, like Breitbart, Newt understands that Big Media is every bit as much our opponent as is the Democratic Party. He is smart, articulate and confident enough to be able to answer their attacks on the spot, without hemming or hawing. People in media continually try to nail Newt with their “gotcha” questions — but they never succeed.
  • America’s survival is threatened not only by terrorism and rogue states outside our borders, but by two major enemies within: communism and radical Islam. Yet, no other candidate besides Newt even mentions Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers and George Soros. Newt is the only one who seems to recognize — or at least, will publicly say — that Obama is not a misguided incompetent with well-meaning intentions, but rather a Marxist radical who believes America is more evil than good, and who is committed to destroying the freedoms that have made America great. As for radical Islam, while Rick Santorum recognizes the threat from Iran, and is very knowledgeable on national security matters, only Newt recognizes — and openly talks aboutthe giant strides that sharia (Islamic law) has already made right here in the U.S., thanks to CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, MSA and the whole alphabet soup of Muslim Brotherhood-spawned groups that, despite proven connections to Hamas and other terror groups, are presented as legitimate “moderates” in our media and have infiltrated our government at high levels, including within the Department of Homeland Security.
  • We can look around and see the perfect storm of economic collapse, national-security threats and inflamed social passions that is converging on us. America is — whether or not we yet realize it — in as much danger now as Britain was in the spring of 1940. Almost too late, the British people finally recognized that Winston Churchill — whom they’d previously despised as “impulsive” and “arrogant,” whom they’d castigated for his “poor judgment” and “grandiose ideas” — was actually the best man, perhaps the only man, who could lead them through the crisis. I’m not saying Newt is Churchill — but having studied Churchill, I am struck by the remarkable parallels between the two. Just as Churchill saw who Hitler really was long before most of his countrymen woke up, Newt understands the dangers to America that many people have so far been unable or unwilling to see. Newt will help open their eyes — because, like Churchill, Newt has a gift for explaining things in ways people can understand. Just as importantly, Newt has the bulldog tenacity and unabashed can-do attitude that the nation needs in its leader if we are to make it through the tough times ahead. As we saw so clearly during the South Carolina debate — when standing ovations kept erupting as Newt spoke — Newt has, as Churchill did, the power to inspire.

Read Full Post »

Today is the sixth anniversary of Terri Schiavo’s murder.

I can already hear people objecting to that choice of words – so let’s just get that issue out of the way right off the bat. Murder is the deliberate killing of a human being. Terri was a human being, and her killing was deliberate.

The dirty secret of the murder of Terri Schiavo was that the American euthanasia movement had been itching for a long time for a court case garnering national attention that would do for the euthanasia movement what Roe v. Wade did for the abortion movement. To achieve that, they needed a “perfect storm” of the same three elements that made the legalization of abortion possible: 1. Hard-core activists, along with activist lawyers and judges;  2. ideologically sympathetic media who would carry water for the activists by taking their lies at face value and repeating them over and over; 3. an uninformed public, with ambivalent feelings about the issue, and thus, ripe for exploitation by agenda-driven media.

In Terri Schiavo, activists saw the same potential that pro-abortion lawyer Sarah Weddington had seen so many years earlier in a young, vulnerable Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. Jane Roe.

Both the judge who gave the order for death by dehydration and the attorney who had argued for it had multiple personal and professional connections with “right-to-die” organizations and, significantly, with the hospice where Terri was held.  Judicial ethics require that a judge with such a strong bias on an issue recuse himself from any case revolving on that issue. Judge George Greer failed to do so. And he has never been disciplined in any way for this violation.

Perhaps we should say that March 18 was the sixth anniversary of Terri’s murder – for that is when, by Judge Greer’s order, the murder began. A murder that was dragged out over nearly two whole weeks — and in full view of the whole world. With her mother and father, sister and brother desperately trying to save her — and police officers forcibly blocking their way. Most human beings survive only three or four days without water, a week at most. But Terri was young, physically healthy and had a fierce desire to live. It took thirteen days to kill her.

How could this happen in a civilized nation? The same way such atrocities always do — with the help of some very big lies. Again, the parallel with the abortion movement: Just as the abortion movement relied on lies – for instance, the lie that Norma McCorvey had been raped (she hadn’t); the lie that a baby in the womb is just an undifferentiated clump of cells (in reality, all major organs are present within a few weeks, and heartbeat can be detected as early as 18 days); the lie that thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions (the true figure was in the dozens) – so too the euthanasia movement lied through their teeth about Terri Schiavo.

The biggest lie – the one the media repeated over and over until most people believed it – was that Terri was “brain dead.” When people finally started seeing through that lie – Terri, after all, was not even comatose, much less near death – they came up with a new one: that she was in a “persistent vegetative state” — an outdated term that is as inaccurate as it is demeaning, and has been much misused and abused.

To push their agenda, the media expertly played on people’s deep-seated fears for themselves – fears of disability and helplessness, fear of losing control over their lives, fear of “being a burden” – all of which had nothing to do with the particular individual, Terri Schindler Schiavo, and what she was experiencing. The media subtly got millions of people subconsciously projecting their own personal issues onto a particular woman in Pinellas Park, Florida.

Never shown in the lamestream media were the video clips of the real, actual person Terri Schiavo responding to music, attempting to talk, beaming at her mother, laughing at her dad’s jokes. Euthanasia activists would say that Terri’s reactions in these film clips are just “reflexes.” (Just as pro-abortion activists who are shown the film “The Silent Scream” say that the baby’s frantic efforts to get away from the abortion instrument are nothing but “reflexes.”) I have always been particularly offended by such dismissive labeling because of my affection for a dear friend’s son – I’ll call him Carl – who’d suffered, as a toddler, an accident that deprived him of oxygen and left him profoundly disabled, much like Terri. (He died ten years ago, of natural causes.) Carl’s expressions, gestures and vocalizations were extremely similar to Terri’s; the first time I saw the video clips linked above, I felt almost as if I were watching Carl.

Perhaps that personal connection explains why I did what I did in March 2005. On the day of  Judge Greer’s fatal decision, I listened to Sean Hannity on the radio interviewing Randall Terry, who’d been asked by Terri’s family to coordinate the lobbying efforts in the Florida Capitol in Tallahassee, while the family and hundreds of supporters were down in Pinellas Park at the hospice where Terri was being held. Sean asked Randall to tell his listeners what they could do. Randall said simply, “Come to Tallahassee. Come to Tallahassee.”

So I did.

I’ll save for another time the chronicle of all the things I witnessed during those four days in Tallahassee as Terri lay dying 250 miles away. For now, I’ll just say that rarely have I seen good and evil, distilled down to their essences, in such clear, sharp juxtaposition. I’ll give one example. Fighting for the good was then-State Senator Dan Webster, who introduced and worked indefatigably – but unsuccessfully – for a bill that would have made life the state’s “default mode” in cases where an incapacitated person had no written directive and his or her family members disagreed about what to do. (This of course would have applied to Terri, and so would have saved her life.) I will never forget Webster’s compassion nor his untiring effort to secure justice.

On the side of evil, I will never forget the female state legislator who, brusquely passing me in a Capitol hallway, barked at me, “We can’t afford to keep all these people alive!”  Her outburst was not only inhuman, but in Terri’s case, just plain stupid – since Terri’s parents and siblings were begging simply to be allowed to take Terri home and care for her at their own expense for the rest of her life. Although nothing mitigates the cruelty behind that legislator’s comment, it’s worth pointing out that it’s quite possible she didn’t know that Terri’s family planned to care for her themselves, because there was a total media blackout of many crucially important facts such as that one.

The best information resource was and is the website that was set up by supporters of Terri and her family during an earlier legal battle, a site known then as Terri’sFight.org. After Terri’s death, the site changed, both in name and in purpose (more on that below), but it still contains valuable historical documentation of all the facts of Terri’s case, including a concise but comprehensive timeline. A quick perusal of it gives one an idea of how many disturbing issues there were that the lamestream media couldn’t be bothered to explore.

For example, after Terri’s mysterious collapse that deprived her brain of oxygen for a time and left her profoundly disabled, her husband, Michael, brought a medical malpractice lawsuit that resulted in a large award to be used for Terri’s care and rehabilitation. Terri did receive physical and speech therapy, and was relearning how to feed herself, and how to speak. But then, despite the progress she was making, after only a few months of therapy, Michael suddenly ordered all therapy terminated. Why?

A good investigative journalist would have wanted to dig into that – but the “mainstream” media did not.  Neither did anyone seem to be interested in asking why Terri, who had no terminal illness, was put in a hospice. Hospices are supposed to be for terminally ill patients, generally with a life expectancy of less than 6 months. Terri was physically healthy; what was she doing there? And why was she put in a back room, with the blinds closed 24/7, not allowed out of her room, and deprived of amenities that the other patients in the hospice had access to? Did the fact that Michael’s lawyer was on the board of that hospice (and indeed was chairman of the board when Terri was placed there) have anything to do with the whole arrangement?

Sworn affidavits by 35 doctors and six other medical professionals were submitted to Judge Greer; each and every one was dismissed or ignored. Most of these affidavits certified — under oath — the specialist’s professional opinion that Terri was not in a “persistent vegetative state.” And every single one of them testified that Terri would have benefited from further therapy, which Michael had abruptly discontinued many years earlier. As for the video clips of Terri, which show so vividly how aware and responsive she really was, Judge Greer never saw them; he is physically blind. Again, why didn’t he recuse himself, since the video clips were so important to the case? (A diagnosis of PVS ought not be a death sentence, but unfortunately, in Terri’s case, it ended up being a pivotal issue.)

Why wouldn’t Michael Schiavo give Terri a divorce, as Terri’s parents begged him to do? Michael had been living with another woman since 1994 and had two children by her — yet he wouldn’t divorce Terri and leave her in the care of her parents. Terri’s parents encouraged him to move forward with his life, marry his girlfriend, and leave Terri to them. They even told him to just keep the rest of the malpractice settlement – take anything you want, just let Terri live!! But he wouldn’t. Why not?

So many questions that never got asked. And stories that never got told (except in conservative outlets), such as this one:  On that horrible day of March 18, before the final order came down from Judge Greer, one of the Schindler family’s lawyers, Barbara Weller, spent a lot of time visiting with Terri in her room, while, in the world outside the hospice, every possible legislative, executive and judicial approach was being frantically pursued in a race against the clock — a clock that had been set ticking by one cranky, unjust Florida district judge. Later, that evening, Weller described the hours she had spent with Terri that day to millions of listeners on talk radio. An excerpt:

The most dramatic event of this visit happened at one point when I was sitting on Terri’s bed next to Suzanne [Terri’s sister]. Terri was sitting in her lounge chair and her aunt was standing at the foot of the chair.  I stood up and leaned over Terri.  I took her arms in both of my hands.  [Terri’s family had been keeping Terri informed, gently but honestly, about what was going on — and Terri already knew what severe hunger and thirst feel like, because Michael had had her feeding tube removed a couple of times in the past.]  I said to her, “Terri if you could only say ‘I want to live’ this whole thing could be over today.” I begged her to try very hard to say, “I want to live.”

To my enormous shock and surprise, Terri’s eyes opened wide, she looked me square in the face, and with a look of great concentration, she said, “Ahhhhhhh.”  Then, seeming to summon up all the strength she had, she virtually screamed, “Waaaaaaaa.”  She yelled so loudly that Michael Vitadamo, Suzanne’s husband, and the female police officer who were then standing together outside Terri’s door, clearly heard her. At that point, Terri had a look of anguish on her face that I had never seen before and she seemed to be struggling hard, but was unable to complete the sentence.  She became very frustrated and began to cry.

I was horrified that I was obviously causing Terri so much anguish.  Suzanne and I began to stroke Terri’s face and hair to comfort her.  I told Terri I was very sorry.  It had not been my intention to upset her so much. Suzanne and I assured Terri that her efforts were much appreciated and that she did not need to try to say anything more.  I promised Terri I would tell the world that she had tried to say, ”I want to live.”

To my mind, the worst lie, other than the “brain dead” lie and the “vegetative” lie and the “she wouldn’t have wanted to live” lie, was the lie about death by dehydration. Over and over, Michael and the people he’d recruited to present his case to the media told us that dehydration is a painless, benevolent way to die. How utterly monstrous.

It’s true that when someone is dying of cancer or some other degenerative disease, the body eventually starts shutting down, and in the late stages, is unable to process food and water; indeed, trying to force food and water on someone whose organs are shutting down can cause pain. But Terri was physically healthy. She had no terminal disease. She only had a feeding tube because, after Michael had discontinued her therapies years earlier, it was safer and more comfortable for her to get her food by tube than by mouth. But there was nothing wrong with her digestive system; she needed food and water just as you and I do.

When a healthy person like you, me or Terri is deprived of water, they do not die peacefully; they die one of the ghastliest deaths there is. Dehydration typically kills people in a few days. Terri’s agony – dragged out for nearly two weeks – is unimaginable.

One more fact that you won’t hear in most media: Terri was not an isolated case. Because of the family conflict, and because the euthanasia movement needed a high-media-profile case to set a precedent, Terri’s ordeal ended up getting extraordinary attention. But death by starvation and dehydration is shockingly common in American hospitals and nursing homes – in some cases, even in direct violation of the patient’s official, written directive; in some cases, even in violation of the family’s unanimous wishes.

What Terri’s family went through is so horrible I can hardly bear to contemplate it. Once the ghastly media circus around their daughter’s excruciating death was over, one might have expected them to get as far away from the eye of the public as possible, and try to somehow put their lives back together.

But it was faith that got them through their hideous ordeal, and their faith continued to guide them in the days and weeks afterward. Within a short time, they set up the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation, keeping the old terrisfight.org web address but transforming it into the site for the new Foundation, which is dedicated to educating people, advocating in the political sphere, and above all, helping other families who find themselves in similar situations to what the Schindlers went through, i.e., threatened with the involuntary death of a disabled family member. The Schindlers have made this outreach their life’s work. Terri’s father, Bob, has since gone to his reward in heaven, but her mother, Mary; her brother, Bobby; and her sister, Suzanne, are carrying on the mission.

The organization continues to grow more and more sophisticated and effective, and is now called the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.  It includes a nationwide network of doctors and lawyers who volunteer to help families at no cost, plus the Schindlers do writing, public speaking and lobbying. Bobby, in particular, has testified before state legislatures and appeared before countless other groups to speak out on behalf of the medically dependent, disabled and incapacitated. One of the long-term goals is “establishing Terri Schindler Schiavo Neurological Centers to provide care for brain injury victims and support for their families.” As with the anti-abortion branch of the pro-life movement, anti-euthanasia advocates know that it’s not just about fighting death, it’s about affirming life — offering a loving, winsome vision, along with real, practical options for people.

In keeping with that positive, life-affirming outlook, the organization has instituted an annual benefit concert. (Last year, the first, starred Randy Travis.) This year’s concert, in Kettering, OH (near Dayton), will star the Beach Boys! (For information and tickets, go here.) Doesn’t get much more sunny and life-loving than that!


Read Full Post »

I could not be in Washington for the March for Life yesterday. But I was there last year, along with over 200,000 others. You probably did not see us on the news.  The “mainstream” media do not want you to see the diversity of ages, races, creeds and backgrounds who show up in Washington every January by the hundreds of thousands to protest the American abortion regime. This year, an estimated 400,000 attended.

The March is preceded and followed by two very different sets of speakers. Before the March, out on the National Mall, there is a Rally for Life at which pro-life activists, ministers, Congressmen and Senators take the podium, with a huge sound system that can be heard all the way out to the edges of the six-figures-strong crowd of people. It’s one of the biggest gatherings in Washington, but many national news media do not cover the event at all. You especially won’t see photos of any of these speakers in the news.  Here’s why:  Immediately behind whoever’s speaking, forming a solid line across the stage, is a silent, shoulder-to-shoulder row of brave women, each holding a black sign with white lettering: “I REGRET MY ABORTION.”  It is nearly impossible to take a photograph of any speaker without those signs showing up in your picture. So the media simply take no pictures. They can’t have the American public knowing that abortion hurts women. Not when they’ve built this whole murderous structure on an absurd fiction of “empowerment” and “choice” for women. As Hitler’s propaganda chief Josef Goebbels said, repeat the lie enough times and eventually people will believe it.

But doesn’t every one of us know better? Haven’t we all seen what abortion has done to women we know who’ve had them? If we’re honest, we know that it has mutilated them emotionally even when it hasn’t left lasting effects physically. But, it’s human nature to resist change, and we’ve gotten so used to abortion… and so we, as a society, keep on trying to convince ourselves that abortion is not that big a deal — and the media are only too eager to keep trying to prop up that fiction.

After the Rally on the Mall, the March begins, with the very front contingent of that whole enormous crowd being the women — and men — of the Silent No More movement. Those women with the black “I regret my abortion” signs are joined by men carrying black signs that say “Men regret lost fatherhood.” These men are even more ignored by the media than the post-abortive women are. The whole abortion debate tends to focus on the mother and the child — as if the man who did the impregnating doesn’t even exist. In all the rhetoric about “choice,” abortion advocates are scandalously silent about the fact that abortion is hardly ever what one would call a completely free “choice”; it is almost always done under pressure, real or perceived, from parents, bosses, and… the men involved.  Some of these men come to regret having pressured their girlfriends/wives to abort. Some men, on the other hand, beg their girlfriends not to abort — but since our warped legal system cuts the man completely out of it, the woman has the absolute legal right to kill the child that it took both of them to conceive. In still other cases, men do not even find out that their girlfriend was pregnant until after the child has already been killed.

On the Silent No More YouTube channel, there are nearly two hundred testimonies by these women and men. (More than 6,000 such speeches have been given all over the U.S. by people such as these.) You will notice that all of them list their full names. No anonymity here. They want the whole wide world to know who they are. Through what is sometimes a long process, have been healed of their shame. They have no secrets to hide any more. Quite the contrary: Now that they walk in truth, no longer living a lie, now that they have accepted forgiveness, and are no longer trying to hide from God and from themselves, they consider it their mission to tell others their stories — in the hope that others faced with an unplanned pregnancy will be spared from going through the hell that they themselves have gone through, having killed a child who can never be brought back.

You will also notice that all the men and women read from their own prepared notes, rather than speaking extemporaneously. There are several reasons for this. One is that each of them has put a lot of time, toil and tears into writing their unique, personal story. They do not want to risk getting flustered or breaking down and not being able to communicate it the way they had wanted to. And of course, the odds of goofing up or forgetting some important detail increase tremendously when one is dealing with such a huge emotional subject, with such painful memories, and involving the deepest, most personal parts of oneself.

One person after another came to the little podium with the small portable sound system to give their testimony. The sun sank lower and lower, the temperature dropped, the crowd thinned to a trickle — but still they went on, in the bitter cold and darkness, telling their stories, even though the crowd of spectators dwindled down to less than a dozen of us by the time the last speaker had her turn. It became clear to me that not only were they telling their stories for the world to hear — because by the end, the audience had become so small — but it was the telling of the story, in itself, that was such an important part of their own healing.

I am posting here the testimonies of three of the women who made the strongest impressions on me that day.

Although the video here of Angelina Steenstra was taken at the 2009 March, her speech here is exactly what I remember from when I heard her speak last year. She broke my heart.

The next video is of Cheryl Carey. I did not personally see this speech because Cheryl was one of the first speakers at the Supreme Court, and I was one of the last to arrive there, since the March crowd was over a mile long, and I was near the tail end. However, I had the incredible blessing of meeting Cheryl in the hotel later that evening, completely by “chance.” (Meaning: God arranged it!) She is an amazing person. We had a long heart-to-heart talk, even though we’d never met each other before, and may never meet again (in this life). She is one of those people who just glows. That glow doesn’t come through in this video as it did in our one-to-one conversation — but that only goes to show that even when one has been fully reconciled and forgiven and healed, the scars from abortion are still incredibly deep.

In the case of this next video, I can tell you:  I was right there at that moment. I was standing just a few feet away from the camera as it filmed this speech. I remember Patricia in a special way because she reminded me so much of several women I have known — women who look so much the very stereotype of “the nice girl next door” — and who had abortions because they didn’t want anyone to find out they’d been “bad.”

There are several very important themes in common in the experiences of these three very different women.
Did you notice?


If you or anyone you know needs healing from an abortion, please, please visit  http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

Read Full Post »

…and we are not falling for it.

After all, look who’s talking!

Michelle Malkin has done a great public service by compiling The progressive “climate of hate”:  An illustrated primer, 2000-2010, divided into eight parts, such as Palin Hate, Bush Hate, and Anti-Military Hate.  It’s pretty nauseating — but for the sake of history, it needed to be done, and I can only salute Michelle (she must have a cast-iron stomach) for pictorially documenting ten years of leftist spite and spittle.

BUUUURRRRNING HOT has done more of a bullet-point type inventory of the Left’s vandalism, vulgarity and violence that is even more comprehensive than the one I listed here the other day.

Nice Deb (such an appropriate name!) sums up the leftists’ double-standard quite… nicely:

Why is it that whenever conservatism is on the ascendancy – we are chided by the left to tone it down? We saw it happen in the ’90′s when conservative talk radio was on the rise, and we’re seeing it today with the tea party movement.

“Be civil”.

When the the left is losing all the arguments, what do we hear?

“Be civil”.

As Rush Limbaugh said on his show, Friday; “civility” is the new word for “shut up”.

We are brow-beated by the most uncivil of civilians. We are told to “watch our tone” by people who look the other way when conservative leaders are threatened, or verbally abused in the most obscene and unspeakable terms, or hung in effigy. How many leftists have been willing to defend Sarah Palin against the Tucson blood libel? Most have instead, attacked her for using the term, “blood libel”.

How many have been willing to discuss at any length, threats of violence and hate speech against her?

Be civil?

For leftists, being civil is a one-way street. They’re to say whatever they want, and we are to… shut up.

It’s an old trick. Just ask Muhammad, who preached tolerance during “the Mecca period,” then turned bloodthirsty from “the Medina period” onwards.  This was his strategy: When you’re weak and out of power (you’ve just been taken to the cleaners in the mid-term elections, say), you make nice and talk peace-love-and-flowers. Once you have absolute power (like control of the White House and both houses of Congress), you proceed to rape (our national security), rob (our children’s inheritance), burn (the Constitution …and, of course, effigies of Sarah Palin) and pillage ( the Treasury).  Also, vandalize (what was the best health-care system in the world) and enslave everyone (to unions and/or government, which are getting more indistinguishable by the day).  All the while mocking, jeering, cursing, sneering and spitting in our faces.

Ah, but now — now that Republicans once again have control of the House, along with a majority of governorships and state legislatures — the word of the day is “civility.”

Doug Ross translates that word as “hudna,” the Arabic term that Muslims use to describe not a true truce, but rather, the mere cessation of hostilities — so that they can lull us into a false sense of security as they, meanwhile, regroup to fight another day.

Hmmph!  I’m not buying it, and I hope you aren’t either. Certainly Don Surber isn’t:

For a decade, from the election of Bush 43 forward, the Left has lied and cheated as it tried to return to power. Al Gore made a mockery out of the American electoral system by being a spoilsport over Florida, which Bush indeed won by 537 votes. Dan Rather forged a document to try to derail Bush’s re-election. Twice Democrats stole U.S. senators from the Republicans. After voting to support the war to get by the 2002 election, many Democrats quickly soured on the war. The profane protests were cheered by liberals who misattributed “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” to Thomas Jefferson; the words belong to the late [communist] historian Howard Zinn.

Once in power, liberals were the opposite of gracious.

For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”

Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.

Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.

Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

Bite me.

The left wants to play games of semantics.

Bite me.

The left wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.

Bite me.

There is grown-up work to do now. Liberals ran up the federal credit card, destroyed the American medical system and undermined the rule of law — which is the foundation of capitalism — with a bunch of unconstitutional fiats from the president and his bureaucracy.

The economy is a mess. The president “inherited” a 7.6% unemployment rate. It’s now 9.4% — after we spent a record $787 billion on a stimulus.

I was not consulted on that stimulus. I had a very good argument against it. I said the money supply was too large and printing more money would fail. I said let the economic downturn run its course.

Lefties were too busy celebrating the 2008 election to listen.

When people protested, lefties made vulgar remarks about tea-bagging and giggled.

So screw you and your civil discourse.

I don’t want to hear it.

I have been screamed at for 10 years.

It’s my turn now. I am not going to scream back. But I refuse to allow anyone to dictate what I say or how I say it. I refuse to allow the same foul-mouthed, foul-spirited foul people who dumped on me to now try to tell me what I may or may not say.

My free speech matters more than the feelings of anyone on the left. You don’t like what I say? Tough.

I will not allow people to label my words Hate Speech or try to lecture me on civility. I saw the lefty signs. The left’s definition of civil discourse is surreal.

We have a terribly unfit president who has expanded government control beyond not only what is constitutional but what is healthy for our freedom.

Indeed, this call for civil discourse is itself a direct threat to my free speech.

So screw you.

You don’t like my words? You don’t like my tone? You feel threatened?

Too bad.


Actually, that is what I want. I want the lefties to feel bad. I want them to feel hurt. I want them to cry to their mommies.

That way the field will be cleared so we grown-ups can fix the nation and the economy. If you can’t put up with a little excrement, get the hell out of the barn.

And if that‘s too tame for you, try Tammy Bruce.

hat tip: NewsRealBlog for the Klavan video

Read Full Post »

News about Saturday’s horrific massacre in Tucson is all over the place. What you will see on this blog, however, is an effort to connect some dots that are quite deliberately not being connected in the “mainstream” (leftist) media.

As you already know, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, the Pima County Sheriff, has been repeatedly making statements to the press that the people responsible for the massacre include Tea Party patriots, talk-radio hosts and Sarah Palin. This is not only bizarre in light of the absence of any links between the suspect and those groups and individuals, but is also highly unethical on the part of a law-enforcement official who is supposed to be impartially and thoroughly investigating the case.

My first thoughts, in trying to explain the sheriff’s inappropriate accusations, were along the lines of: “Who has paid off this guy to spout this stuff, and how many millions are they paying him?”

It turns out that the likeliest explanation is corruption, all right, but of a very different kind.  James Kelley, a Tucson native who writes a blog called The Cholla Jumps, has reported that the alleged murderer, Jared Loughner, has been known for some time to the sheriff’s department as an unstable and potentially violent individual.

[Sheriff Dupnik’s] blaming of radio personalities and bloggers is a pre-emptive strike because Mr. Dupnik knows this tragedy lays at his feet and his office. Six people died on his watch and he could have prevented it.  He needs to step up and start apologizing to the families of the victims instead of spinning this event to serve his own political agenda….

Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed [of the threats], his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation….

Every victim of his threats previously must also be wondering if this tragedy could have been prevented if they had been more aggressive in pursuing charges against Mr. Loughner. Perhaps with a felony conviction he would never have been able to lawfully buy the Glock 9mm Model 19 that he used to strike down the lives of six people and decimate 14 more.

This was not an act of politics. This was an act of a mentally disturbed young man hell bent on getting his 15 minutes of infamy. The Pima County Sheriff’s Department was aware of his violent nature and they failed to act appropriately. This tragedy leads right back to Sheriff Dupnik and all the spin in the world is not going to change that fact.

[emphases mine, above]

The author of the above paragraphs, James Kelley, is not some out-on-the-fringes conspiracy theorist. He is  a contributing columnist for the Arizona News-Telegraph and the Executive Director of SocialNetworkingWatchdog.Org, “a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating youth and seniors on personal security while using social networking.” He is a Navy veteran, and was an analyst for the Naval Security Group and the National Security Agency.

Even without the Kelley post, though, we have these reports from the “mainstream” media, helpfully compiled by Patterico:

We know that the Arizona Daily Star reported on January 8 that:

The suspected shooter has made death threats before and been contacted by law-enforcement officers, but the threats weren’t against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Dupnik said. The suspect is unstable, Dupnik said, but the sheriff would not say he is “insane.”

We know that NPR confirmed:

“As we understand it, there have been law enforcement contacts with the individual where he made threats to kill,” Dupnik said during a press conference Saturday evening. But he wouldn’t say who those threats were aimed at.

We know that CBS News reported that Loughner’s community college professor had called 911:

“Class started and, five minutes later, he raised his hand. I guess he got the idea. He asked, ‘Could I go to the library and do the assignment and come back before class is over and turn it in for full credit?’ And I said, ‘No, that it would be half-credit, because it was due at the beginning.’ And again, he started his rant about the Constitution, pointing to the flag, pointing to the Constitution up at the front of the room, and at that point, he wouldn’t stop, so I asked the students to be calm and wait, and at that point I went to the next room, and alerted my lab staff that there was a situation, and I called 911.

Hill asked, “Were you fearful for your safety or for the safety of your other students at that point? Did he seem that he was violent in any way?”

Scheidemantel answered, “He was not violent in any way, and he did not threaten anyone directly. But I did feel uneasy. I know the students were feeling uneasy. And so we called 911, and two officers came out. They removed him from the room and talked to him for awhile, and then one of the officers came to talk to me.”

Scheidemantel said the school and police backed her up appropriately.

“Pima, I have to commend them. Backed me up and was right there. One officer talked to him for about a half-hour outside the classroom, and I think they realized that he was not thinking rationally, and the other officer mentioned something about maybe special ed or whatever.

I’d like to hear that 911 tape.

I’d like to see those police reports.

I’m interested enough, in fact, that I am filing an open records law request for the documents. Do I expect the Dupster to comply? Well, willful violation of the law can lead to damages, so . . . we’ll have to see.

[emphasis mine, in last paragraph]

As Karl Denninger writes, in an editorial at The Market Ticker,

Each and every one of those threats was an offense and had just one of them been prosecuted it would have resulted in the suspect being blacklisted in the NICS database – and thus he would not have been able to buy the gun he shot the people in Tucson with.

In the meantime, the well-respected conservative newsblogger Doug Ross has been doing some investigative legwork to confirm Kelley’s report. He has confirmed Amy Loughner’s (the alleged assassin’s mother) employment with Pima County. As for Randy Lee Loughner, the suspect’s father,

An unconfirmed report describes him as also affiliated with local government, working in — of all places — “Child Protective Services.”

The question arises, in part because of the sheriff’s odd behavior: did the fact that one or both parents worked in local government allow them to “pull strings” to protect a troubled child?

The answers to those questions will probably be a long time in coming, though. James Kelley, in trying to get more information, has run into some difficult roadblocks. Only one day after his first, shocking revelation about the Pima County sheriff’s department’s previous knowledge of Jared Loughner’s problems, Kelley posted the following:

Since my last post concerning Jared Loughner and his past encounters with law enforcement, it appears  that many people want and demand that my source for the information I posted be disclosed.

First and foremost, I struggled with ever writing the post I wrote. I had to source the puzzle pieces and vet the information with people who assured me they had first hand information regarding Jared Loughner. I wanted documentation. Unfortunately, the mere possession of the documentation would be a violation of HIPAA laws and the track back would be detrimental to the livelihoods and lives of the people involved.

Anyone in Law Enforcement or Mental Health in Pima County that ever had contact with Mr. Loughner is now in bunker mode. Everyone is afraid of lawsuits down the road. They are evaluating their behavior and checking to make sure they followed all rules governing the care of Jared Loughner.

Lawfully some of the people that had knowledge of Mr Loughner could never come forward without subpoena by a lawful authority. Others are just too afraid.

It is my sincere hope that transparency in the investigation will prevail. We are dealing with very big issues that will affect the prosecution and defense of Loughner.

That is the only thing that should be of concern to law enforcement at the moment.

In the end, it sounds to me like the sheriff’s weird behavior the last few days — perpetrating a horrible slander against political conservatives, instead of focusing, as any law-enforcement professional should, on the actual facts of the case — is indicative of the sheriff himself having some major “issues.”  In my experience, when a person’s behavior cannot be explained in any rational way, and appears to even harm their own self-interest (e.g., making oneself look like an incompetent idiot), the explanation can often be found in repressed guilt feelings.

I suppose a more cynical person might say that the sheriff could just be trying to cover his own backside — by deflecting attention away from possible departmental negligence or misjudgment — but I believe it’s equally possible that the person he’s trying hardest to hide from is… himself.

Read Full Post »

Oh happy day

January 5, 2011. A day we have awaited for so long.  A day that will go down in the history books.  A day when all our hard work over the past year — from organizing and attending Tea Party rallies, to attending congressional Town Hall meetings, from walking neighborhoods for our candidates in the primaries, to making get-out-the-vote phone calls nonstop in the days leading up to Election Day — pays off.  A new Congress has been sworn in that includes a House freshman class more vigorous, more ready to fight for We The People, than any in memory.

For those of us who want to see the GOP draft Allen West as its presidential nominee only 19 months from now, it is an especially important day. For a “Draft West” movement to even be possible, he will need to become a household name, and quickly.  But the great thing is, the media simply cannot stay away from Allen West; he is a magnet.  Now that Congressman West has been sworn in, the already heavy media coverage West has been getting since November 2 is about to go to a whole new level.  Just today, he was interviewed by NPR and CBS, and featured as one of “five frosh to watch” by Fox News, in addition to the expected coverage by Florida media outlets.

The media think that they want to interview Allen West because he’s what they think is a rare species, a black Republican. (They’re as wrong about that as they are about everything else, of course; black Republicans are getting less rare every day, and Allen West is always quick to point this out.)  Allen West is a rare species, all right, but not in the way the folks in “mainstream” media tend to think.  Allen West is the rarest political species of all: a person who knows the truth, says it out loud, and doesn’t back down in the face of opposition.  When I read the transcript of the NPR interview, I found myself laughing out loud:  It was hilarious to see the politically-correct interviewer try to make Allen fit into his own pre-formulated narrative. It just did not work.  (Read the whole thing, if you have time; it’ll make your day.)

In fact, the more the interviewer tried to trip Allen up, the more Allen shone. His clarity, insight, honesty and common sense only stood out all the more clearly against the mushy background of the interviewer’s all-too-predictable, conventional thinking.

The 112th Congress is now in session.  I can’t wait to see what happens next.

Read Full Post »

This really steams me.

These were the “mainstream” headlines last week:
“Allen West bats Eric Cantor for weak Congressional calendar”; “GOP freshman charges Cantor with crafting weak Congressional schedule”; “Republican rep.-elect picks a bone with a top leader in his party”…
Look at that language, please.  “bats”… “charges”… “picks a bone”…

What does the average person think when they see headlines like these?  They think: “troublemaker” — and worse.

Well, if you (unlike the average American) take the trouble to read the actual letter Allen West sent to House Majority Leader-elect Eric Cantor, surprise, surprise!  Who would have guessed?  It’s the very model of respect and civility.  Of course.  What else would you expect from a career military officer — especially from such a class act as Allen B. West?

Here. Read it for yourself.  (Note especially, in the second-to-last paragraph, West’s gracious and sincere expression of appreciation to Cantor for the good changes Cantor has already made.)

Dear Majority Leader- Elect Eric Cantor:

I have now had several days to review the Congressional Calendar and return to my District to listen to many of my constituents’ views regarding the schedule for the First Session of the 112th Congress.

I believe this schedule does not sufficiently reflect the concerns of the American people as expressed on November 2nd.

The election demonstrated that the voters, including the citizens of the 22nd District of Florida, wanted the United States Congress to aggressively address the many challenges facing our nation. As we both know, Congress needs to work to create jobs, reduce the deficit, strengthen our economy, limit the size of government, and contend with a plethora of national security issues.

Even though the schedule contains 123 days and 32 weeks of session which is consistent with first sessions in previous Congresses, I believe the citizens of this nation, as demonstrated by their action at the ballot box this year, do not want a Congress that is consistent – even in terms of scheduling – with the past.

Further, the schedule, as proposed, means the House of Representatives will not meet the mark of 90 days in session until September of 2011, just a matter of days before the end of the Fiscal Year. The American people expect the Congress to do a thorough review of our nation’s spending priorities, and I believe the number of days in session do not provide an adequate amount of time for such oversight.

I am sure we both agree that the issues before us today require the Members of Congress to go beyond what has been the accepted practice in the past to meet the challenges of the future.

I am very concerned that the House of Representatives consistently stays in session for only two weeks on Capitol Hill, followed by one week in the District. Further, the schedule puts the House of Representatives in recess when the U.S. Senate is in session — and vice-versa. Certainly the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Democrat-controlled Senate are going to need to work in concert to enact legislation to move this nation forward.

I understand from more senior colleagues limiting votes during the day between 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. will allow the essential committees work to be uninterrupted by votes on the floor. Further, the elimination of many ceremonial pieces of legislation will allow for more time on the House floor to work on essential business. Finally, establishing an adjournment date of December 8, 2011, sends a message to the American people that their House of Representatives is going to work all twelve months of the year. I want to thank you for initiating these important changes.

However, after listening to the citizens of the 22nd Congressional District of Florida over the course of the election cycle and hearing their concerns and understanding the challenges we face as a country, I promised my constituents I would go to Capitol Hill and work every day to help solve these problems. I hope that the Leadership, if it becomes clear that we are not meeting the promise we made to the American people, will modify the schedule in order for us to accomplish the important task we have before us.

Very respectful,

Allen West
22nd District of Florida

cc: Congressman-Elect Austin Scott

Hat tip: The Other McCain

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: