For Republicans, Rape Is Still Rape

I am a proud Republican, and more than that, a proud Conservative, which I happily type with a capital 'C' in front. I do not support every plank that the party puts forth, nor do I support every politician that takes up the 'Red' banner. And those who get my vote, such as George W. Bush, sometimes only get it because they are better than the lousy liberal alternatives.

I am also a proud father and grandfather of three beautiful daughters and a wonderful granddaughter, the husband of a loving wife, and a brother-in-law, cousin, uncle, nephew, co-worker, neighbor, and friend to many outstanding women.

All that prefaces my position now in full support of a bill (HR3) put forth by New Jersey's outstanding congressman Chris Smith that would essentially end any taxpayer funding of abortions, as well as any tax breaks for health insurance that covers the same.

You see, the usual suspects in the liberal community, from the radical fringe such as MoveOn to the agenda-driven Planned Parenthood to supposedly mainstream Democrats looking to protect their political power, are predictably against this legislative initiative. However, as usual, they don't stop at simply voicing common sense opposition in a debate of ideas. Instead they have stooped to the usual tactics of code words, divisiveness, and misinterpretation.

The tactic chosen to oppose the anti-abortion legislation, or as those of us firmly on the side of right and good choose to call it, the pro-life legislation, is incredibly and intentionally ugly. They have chosen to paint Republicans as somehow supporting, denying, or minimizing the crime of rape.
They are saying that Republicans are trying to "redefine rape", and have actually stated in some forums that to Republicans, rape is no longer rape.

I find that kind of rhetoric, and that's all it is, political and social rhetoric, to be patently offensive. As a man who has all of the above listed women in his life, I can tell you for a fact that to me and all Republicans, rape is rape is rape. I would be wholly sympathetic to and supportive of any woman in my own life who might experience this crime, in fact, a couple of them have experienced it. The same statement of sympathy and support can be said for Representative Smith, Republican leader John Boehner, and every other Republican politician.

This is, of course, not the issue that the legislation relates to at all. The legislation aims to back up with concrete action one of the basic platform items in the party's 'Pledge to America' when it won control of congress in the elections of November 2010. As Boehner has stated "Our members feel very strongly about the sanctity of human life."

A simple reading of the actual legislation easily shows that Republicans indeed have a heart. The first handful of sections, 301-304, state the long-held party position against the murder of innocent babies in the womb as they call for a prohibition on the funding of abortions themselves, for health care plans that cover abortions, on tax benefits relating to abortion, and on federal facilities and employees being used in the killings.

Then section 309 clearly reads that these limitations shall not apply to "situations where the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incense." It further reads that the limitations shall not apply in the case "where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Common sense legislation that respects and allows provisions for women who have been attacked, abused, taken advantage of, or placed in danger while also standing up against the killing of innocent lives simply because someone was irresponsible, lazy, careless, negligent, or just plain-old heartless and uncaring. Once again, and per usual, a simple actual reading of the actual legislation being presented shows the truth for those who are willing to seek it out.

So do not allow yourself to be persuaded by headline-grabbing, blog-clogging, radical lefty propaganda campaigns currently underway. Read the legislation yourself by simply clicking on the title of this article, which is a link to that legislation as actually proposed in it's entirety. Then make your own decision. But make no mistake, we Republicans love and care for the women in our lives, and we will not be "redefining rape" at all. Rape is rape, and it is morally wrong. Just as morally wrong is the murder of innocent children whose only "fault" is one of being an inconvenient burden to an irresponsible parent.

A Better Way Forward

Earlier today while you were busy at work or taking care of yourself or your family at home, a sea change occurred in Washington, D.C. that will affect your life in a very positive way for years to come. Today, the Republican Party took control of the U.S. House of Representatives officially, and the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was elected.

Not only will Boehner's self-effacing, emotional, heart-on-his-sleeves style be in stark contrast to the blathering and blustering that American has suffered through over the past four years with Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker's post, but the concrete results that the country will begin to see over time will  be even more profound.

Back in November, the American voting public sent a clear message to lawmakers that the controlling Democratic Party led by Pelosi and President Barack Obama had grossly overstepped their bounds in beginning to lead the country down a path towards Socialism. No longer would irresponsible bailouts to big business, massive increases in government control of our daily lives, and repressive taxation be permitted to continue.

In taking the gavel of Congressional power today, Boehner promised to return government to the people with a renewed focus on the Constitution and the principles of transparency, honesty and accountability. Of course in actuality it was we, the people, who had returned government to ourselves
by putting Boehner into power with the landslide electoral victories of November 2010.

Speaker of the House Boehner recognized the fact of the people's expressed will when he stated in today's speech "The people voted to end business as usual, and today we begin to carry out their instructions." Those instructions include making the Bush-era tax cuts permanent for every American, rolling back the socialist Obama health-care behemoth, ending the practice of "earmarks" in legislation initiatives, and returning America to it's Constitutional roots.

The Republican Party itself has not been a very good steward of these values when it has had the opportunity in the past. In fact, there is really only one major difference in today's Democratic and Republican Party. That difference is the people who make up the two parties out here in the homeland. The majority of Republicans at the grass-roots levels want a national government that keeps taxes low, keeps spending low, promotes personal and familial responsibility, that keeps us safe here at home, and that never inhibits the faith that is at the very foundation of our nation.

Democrats, on the other hand, generally want a government that lets anyone do what they want, when they want, except when it bothers them specifically as an individual, in which case they want the government to step in with regulation and control and penalties. They want an ever-expanding nanny state that takes care of them from the cradle to the grave, and want those who have been historically hard-working, the job creators, the builders, to pay for it all.

Oh, and they want to have sex without fear of any parental consequences, and so they push for the murder of babies under the guise of a "choice" for women. Never mind that the poor little baby gets no such choice in the matter at all. Hey, mommy couldn't keep her legs closed. Hey, daddy couldn't keep it in his pants. So sorry kid, but you gotta go. (insert sucking vacuum sound here)

John Boehner and the Republicans who took office today know one thing for certain, that they are being watched. No, I'm not talking about being watched by and Dem politician or liberal media outlet. I'm not talking about being watched by some hack comedian or some self-righteous television talk show host. I'm talking about being watched by us, the very same people who elected them in November.

The elections of November 2010 are only the beginning. There are more congressional offices to take, more Senatorial offices to flip. More state houses to make a move on in the future. And then, of course, there is the big one in 2012, when it will be time to topple the faux Messiah himself.

A better way forward has been forged, not by politicians, but by the people of the Republican Party. The politicians who took office today, particularly the new Speaker of the House John Boehner because of the importance of his public position and the power that he now wields, are only our instruments. We will be listening closely to the tunes they play in the coming months and years.

Congress Votes to Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell

The United States Senate votes 65-31 to end the policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The House had already voted to repeal it. The President has said he will await it to come to his desk so that he can sign it.

It's done. It was done by an Act of Congress, and the President's path - to get it ended by an Act of Congress - has paid off.

If anyone can send me a link to an embeddable clip of John Lewis and his speech on this on the House floor, I would appreciate. Lewis was fabulous.

from The Daily Dish

Obama's Long Game: 65 - 31

18 Dec 2010 03:45 pm

Do gay activists, including myself, want to doubt it now? Of course, it's my job to push, to criticize, to explain, to shame, to encourage. But I did so precisely to advance what has happened today, and am glad that it was a small part of the climate that made it happen. I reiterate what I wrote barely a week ago:

It seems to me the events of the last month or so reveal that the Obama administration has finally delivered the goods for the military, which is hobbled by this dated, counter-productive policy, and for the gay community, by moving the issue deliberately through the Congress before the executive branch or the judicial branch.

Like 2009's removal of the HIV ban, which was as painstakingly slow but thereby much more entrenched, this process took time. Without the Pentagon study, it wouldn't have passed. Without Obama keeping Lieberman inside the tent, it wouldn't have passed. Without the critical relationship between Bob Gates and Obama, it wouldn't have passed. It worked our last nerve; we faced at one point a true nightmare of nothing ... for years. And then we pulled behind this president, making it his victory and the country's victory, as well as ours.

We also know now what a McCain administration would have done: nothing. The disgraceful bitterness and rancor and irrationality that the Senator has shown these past few months reveal just how important it was to defeat him and his deranged, delusional side-kick in 2008.

Here's the presidential statement:

Today, the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend.

By ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.

As Commander-in-Chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known. And I join the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the overwhelming majority of service members asked by the Pentagon, in knowing that we can responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness.

I want to thank Majority Leader Reid, Senators Lieberman and Collins and the countless others who have worked so hard to get this done. It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law.

The President Is Just Cleaning up the Congressional Democrats Mess..

According to the U.S. Constitution, there are three different branches of government: Executive, Judicial, Legislative. Each branch has its own responsibilities.

If you listen to the howling from Congressional Democrats , one would think that the deal the President cut with the GOP just dropped out of the sky, and he just strolled on into negotiations with them, without any CONTEXT whatsoever.

Here's the thing.

The President might have gotten a better deal, hell, he might not have had to make a deal at all..

IF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS HAD TAKEN CARE OF BUSINESS.

It was Congressional Democrats who didn't do squat about the 99ers. They've known about them for months...how do I know that? Because I heard rant upon rant from Ed Schultz about this topic.

The extension of unemployment benefits was no surprise either for Congressional Democrats. At any time, with a majority in the House, and Senate, they could have done unemployment benefit extensions.

Now, we get to the tax cuts.

Was the President the only person in Washington that knew that the tax cuts were going to expire and a vote needed to be taken on them?

Ummm......NOPE.

The Congressional Democrats were asked to vote on the tax cuts and make them an issue for the fall elections - by the President - in September.

They could have decoupled the tax issue between those making less than $250,000 and those making more than $250,000. They could have done an up or down vote on the tax issue BEFORE November 2010.

But, they didn't.

Not only did they not, but now, we're getting a list of Congresscritters who weaseled their way to the White House, begging off a vote on the tax issue.

So, the DEMOCRATS in Congress FAIL to live up to their legislative responsibilities. They chose NOT to vote on Unemployment Extensions. They chose NOT to add another tier to take care of the 99ers (which is the only part of the President's deal that I disagree with entirely). They chose NOT to vote on the tax cuts by decoupling them. They chose NOT to vote on them at the beginning of the lame duck session. They chose NOT to ram through their proposal on the Estate Tax that they've had on the table for at least a year.

So, they chose NOT to do all those things.

AND, now, they have the NERVE to be yelping like a beaten dog when the President steps in and tries to clean up their neglect. Their mess.



I've been listening to so-called pundits all over tv too, White and Black, and they've lost their minds too. Watched Roland Martin this past Sunday, and listening to his panel, and them talking about how the President folded, and how the Republicans were going to ' have to come around' when it came to unemployment extensions, my only thought was, as I restrained myself from throwing something at the tv:

Have those Negroes been watching the same GOP?

IN WHAT WORLD do they think that the GOP was going to 'come around' to unemployment benefits extension?

IN WHAT WORLD?

I am not part of the national media political complex whose livelihoods depend on perpetuating the DELUSION that there are two parties that genuinely want to work in Washington.

Simply put - that's a fucking lie.

You have the Democrats - with all their imperfections.

And, then you have a bunch of soulless, without a conscience, would sell their Mama for a buck, and would feed us all to Corporate America if it deposited a check in their bank accounts - Republicans.

THAT is who they are.

That family in Tennessee that lost their home because they didn't pay a $75 fee, and had the fire department stand there and watch their house BURN TO THE GROUND - THAT is the essence of the Republican 'Lord of the Flies' mentality.

The creation of DEATH PANELS IN Arizona, killing off Medicaid Transplant Patients, so as to fund a tax break for the rich -- THIS is who the GOP IS.

I am not part of those who think that the GOP has a point about ANYTHING. People have a point, when they are willing to express humanity towards their fellow man.

THAT is NOT the GOP.

When I hear DELUSIONISTS like Congressman Anthony Weiner get on Rev. Al's show and have the nerve to criticize the President and this deal, and when Rev. Al called him on the deal that Congressional Democrats would put together, he said he HOPED that they could do better.

HOPE?

2 MILLION PEOPLE would be without unemployment benefits and this man HOPED that the Congressional Dems could do better?

PRETENDING that the GOP would lose ANY sleep about cutting off unemployment benefits is a DELUSION that angers me. Playing chicken with people without a conscience is a losing proposition.

Here is what Senator Jim DeMint says about unemployment benefits:

Commentary: DeMint's attitude towards jobless is cruel
.................................
Yes, if there was ever a moment in this recession that underscored the growing “let them eat cake” attitude of some, it came during a radio interview Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina gave the other day.

Vowing to fight any attempt to deny the rich anything less than a permanent income tax cut, DeMint said he opposed extending jobless benefits to the long-term unemployed, especially if it added to the debt.

Even then, unemployment compensation ought to be turned into a loan program, he said.

“It then encourages people to go back to work,” DeMint said.

Yes, sir. If only those lazy bums collecting jobless benefits had to repay the government aid they’re squandering on food, gas and lodging, then maybe they’d get off their fat butts and find work.

I haven't heard JACK about anyone criticizing DeMint, and IMO, SILENCE=CONSENT.

Here's another one from Big Pharma himself:

The Daily Bile Of Limbaugh
14 Dec 2010 10:36 am

Sometimes the hackery is so blatant it's amusing. Here's a December 10 classic:

The unemployed are being treated as virtuous. They are being treated to further payments while not working, now up to three years. You're seeing more and more Democrats come out and actually wage war on the rich; wage war on working people; wage war on creative people; wage war on the people that provide jobs; wage war on the productive people of this country. You see it now. It's been a little bit more abstract, but now these guys lost the election, and the mask is off and you are seeing the genuine Marxists that they are, you're seeing it, and you're seeing the venom that's attached to 'em. I mean they look at what happened to Charlie Rangel as fair. You know, there's an all-out war against productive self-reliant people in this country by the Democrat Party. That's what you notice.

Shortly therafter he goes to a commercial break. And when he returns?

Ladies and gentlemen, if we were on the ball and if the Republicans were on the ball, the question being asked would be: Why are the Democrats trying to take away unemployment extensions here at Christmas? That's how this ought to be framed. If we were on offense, that would be the question: Why are the Democrats trying to take away unemployment benefits here at Christmastime? That would put them on defense. That's the question we should be asking.

Any criticisms of the racist junkie?

NOPE.

SILENCE=CONSENT

For those who STILL live under the DELUSION that the GOP could be SHAMED into anything, the GOP JUST DENIED BENEFITS TO 9/11 RESCUE WORKERS WHO HAVE BECOME ILL.

That's right....this bunch of soulless parasites, that people have the nerve to get on tv and talk about them that they could be ' SHAMED' into doing the right thing by the unemployed...

JUST DENIED BENEFITS TO 9/11 RESCUE WORKERS.



And, people STILL want to tell me that the President could have gotten a better deal?

Elections Have Consequences

For the past year it has become the public mantra of Democratic Party politicians: "Elections have consequences." Whether they were talking about bailing out large corporations or taking over the banking, auto, and health care industries, that simple phrase has been their fallback position.

To some extent, that is true. When the nation elects a leader such as Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, it has definitely sent a message. A majority of the citizens of the United States spoke up in November of 2008 and sent the message that the direction the country was headed during the Bush years was not one that they wanted to continue following.

The American electorate sent a clear message for 'change' to Washington politicians at that point. The problem, however, and it is a big one for the Dems, is that the voters quite obviously wanted 'change' with a small 'c', not the "Change" that marked the Obama campaign's signature slogan.

What Obama was trumpeting was "fundamental change", a message that he banged home time and time again. The mass electorate heard those words and decided that he meant a simple change in direction, something they wanted indeed. What he actually meant was to change the very nature of what it meant to be America as a nation.

After winning election, Obama got his house in order, got his Democratic Party leadership organized, and then set out down the path towards that fundamental change from a democratic, capitalist society to a full-blown European-inspired socialist one. The American 'system' that had made us the envy of the world for generations had somehow "failed" in is words and needed to be almost completely trashed.

Problem was, the American public didn't go along for the ride. As the depth and scope of Obama's vision of change came into view and practice, as Dem national leaders like Nancy Pelosi in Congress and Harry Reid in the Senate began to push the legislative agenda, it became crystal-clear to Americans that socialism was the order of the day.

The Democrats were making a fundamental political mistake, one that the Republicans had made a couple of times in the last couple of decades. They assumed that their election to power now gave them a mandate for major changes to America, and they began to institute those major changes.

Quickly, the American public began to voice their concerns. In every major public opinion poll, the public shouted at the top of it's lungs for the Dem leadership to slow things down. Some changes were needed to the system, yes. But almost no one wanted socialist restrictions and control to replace democratic capitalism's freedom and liberty.

Socialism has failed everywhere that it has every been tried on earth. The reasons are quite simple. Taking away incentives from individuals to work harder, to dream bigger, to achieve more results in less production. Citizens come to rely on their government to provide for them. Eventually, the government can no longer do so, because it simply lacks the resources.

You cannot possibly tax individuals and businesses enough to sustain government control. And let's face it, that is the only place that government gets it's money. Government is, in fact, you and I. We pay into the system to keep it functional. We elect people to run things as our representatives. In a socialist system, those representatives just keep raising and raising our taxes to take on more and more control over our everyday lives.

Eventually a system such as the Obama administration is attempting to install will collapse on itself because it is economically unsustainable. But before it does, society will degenerate into a mess of ennui and disillusionment, or worse. If those who have control in a socialist system see that control slipping away, their response has often been to use force to remain in power. They change the laws and keep themselves in the life boats to protect their own interests as the ship sinks around them.

Many Americans did understand that this would be the direction that Obama and the leading Dems would take once in power. Those are the tens of millions who voted against them. They are now being joined by the millions 'in the middle', those Americans who wanted the small 'c' of 'change', not the capital 'C' of Obama's socialism.

Yes, Democrats, elections have consequences. However, what you are failing to remember is the lessons of politicians and Parties past. That there is always another election coming. This November, Americans will again go to the polls. All signs point to the Dems losing control of Congress, which will seriously cripple Obama's ability to continue his agenda.

Obama and Pelosi and Reid have led America down this path of 'Change' at full speed, recklessly disregarding the public's wishes time and time again. Reid and many of his Dem leadership co-horts will undoubtedly pay the price in the Fall of 2010. They will pay that price because, despite their election victories in 2006 and 2008, they are now ignoring the American electorate in 2010.

Now is a time of opportunity for the Republican Party to reassert itself, but it must be willing to return to basic American principles of democracy, capitalism, and traditional exceptionalism in order to take full advantage. The Republicans must reflect core American values, pledge a change in direction to fiscal sanity and responsibility, and to fully and effectively preserving and defending our nation and it's founding principles.

In the fall of 2010, the Democrats will be reminded that elections do indeed have consequences. When they lose their control over Congress, their control over the purse strings and the power and the direction, then they will cry and wail and moan. They will blame one another, point fingers, and become disgruntled. And they will have no one to blame but themselves, because elections do indeed have consequences, the next one as strongly as the last one.

Religion and Politics Don't Mix?

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." --Thomas Jefferson

For all of our nation's history, there have been tactical battles between opposing political ideologies -- liberals (leftists) who want to liberate us from constitutional rule of law, and conservatives who strive to conserve rule of law. Great political capital has been, and continues to be, expended by the Left in order to offend our Constitution, and by the Right in order to defend it.

Amid the din and rhetoric of the current lineup of tactical contests, I ask that you venture up to the strategic level and consider a primal issue that transcends all the political noise.

How many times have you heard the rejoinder, "Religion and politics don't mix"?

Most Americans have, for generations now, been inculcated (read: "dumbed down") by the spurious "wall of separation" metaphor and believe that it is a legitimate barrier between government and religion. So effective has been this false indoctrination that even some otherwise erudite conservatives fail to recall that religion and politics not only mix, but are inseparable.

Recall that our Founders affirmed in the Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In other words, our Creator bestowed the rights enumerated in our Declaration and, by extension, as codified in its subordinate guidance, our Constitution. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights; they are not gifts from government.

To that end, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

But the Left has, for many decades, made its primary objective the eradication of God from every public quarter, and routinely relied on judicial activism to undermine constitutional rule of law and, thus, the natural rights of man.

The intended consequence of this artificial barrier between church and state is to remove knowledge of our Creator from all public forums and, thus, over time, to disabuse belief in a sovereign God and the natural rights He has endowed.

This erosion of knowledge about the origin of our rights has dire implications for the future of liberty.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

As the author of our Declaration of Independence makes clear, we should all tremble that man has adulterated the gifts of God.

Ironically, it was Jefferson who penned the words "wall of separation between church and state" in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

Jefferson was responding to a letter the Association wrote to him objecting to Connecticut's establishment of Congregationalism as its state church. Jefferson responded that the First Amendment prohibited the national (federal) government from establishing a "national church."

After all, the controlling language (Amendment I) reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Jefferson concluded rightly that the Constitution's 10th Amendment federalism provision prohibited the national government from interfering with matters of state governments -- a "wall of separation," if you will, between the federal government and state governments.

Among all our Founders, Jefferson was most adamant in his objection to the construct of the Judicial Branch of government in the proposed Constitution, writing, "The Constitution [would become] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Jefferson warned: "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. ... It has long been my opinion ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 81, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution."

But Jefferson was correct in his apprehension about our Constitution being treated as "a mere thing of wax" by what he called the "despotic branch," who would do the bidding of their special-interest constituencies rather than interpret the plain language of the Constitution.

In 1947, Justice Hugo Black perverted Jefferson's words when Black speciously opined in the majority opinion of Everson v. Board of Education that the First Amendment created a "wall of separation" between religion and government, thus opening the floodgates for subsequent opinions abolishing religious education and expression in all public forums.

John Adams wrote, "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."

It may not be in the power of man to alienate the gift of liberty, but it will certainly take the power of men, guided by our Creator, to defend it. To that end, religion and politics are inseparable.

WRITTEN by Mark Alexander and presented in his Federalist Society emailing dated May 14th, 2009

Decay at the Very Root

Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. You say, "That's a pretty heavy charge, Mr. Williams. You had better be prepared to back it up with evidence!" I'll try with a few questions for you to answer.

Do you believe it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe some kind of force should be used against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered with either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions, but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends.

In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property. That's simple. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.

The reason your college professor, politician or minister cannot give a simple yes or no answer as to whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another is that they are sly enough to know either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A "yes" answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices, such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A "no" answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget.

There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the federal government's constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions.

Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. Now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They'll pay higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes.

As of now, nearly 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability - so what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy.

I am all too afraid that a historian, 100 years from now, will footnote America as a historical curiosity where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government but that it all returned to mankind's normal state of affairs - arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite.

WRITTEN by Walter Williams in The Washington Times on April 4th, 2009

National Day of Prayer

In 1775, the First Continental Congress called for a National Day of Prayer. In 1952 Congress established the NDP as an annual event by a joint resolution, signed into law by President Truman. In 1988, the law was amended to designate the first Thursday in May for NDP, and was signed into law by President Reagan.

The mission of the National Day of Prayer Task Force is to communicate with every family the need for personal repentance and prayer, and to mobilize families to personal and corporate prayer, particularly on behalf of the nation and those in leadership on all levels of local, national, church and educational areas of influence.

In 1800, John Adams wrote in a letter to his wife Abigail, "I Pray Heaven to Bestow The Best of Blessing on THIS HOUSE, and on ALL that shall hereafter Inhabit it. May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under This Roof!" It was his last year in office, but the first year any president occupied the White House.

Franklin D. Roosevelt had Adam's quote lettered in gold in the marble over the fireplace in the State Dining Room of the White House.

Indeed, prayer is the only enduring path to hope and change, and our nation needs a lot of both right now. However, the current inhabitant of the White House will not be observing NDP. Robert Gibbs told his press club, "We're doing a proclamation, which I know that many administrations in the past have done," but Obama will not be inviting faith leaders to the White House (like Wright, Pfleger and Farrakhan?), or attending any of the events associate with NDP.

That notwithstanding, The Patriot Post's National Advisory Board and staff invite you to join us, and millions of our countrymen, in prayer for our nation today at 12:00 local time. The NDP theme for this year, "Prayer ... America's Hope," is based on Psalm 33:22, "May your unfailing love rest upon us, O Lord, even as we put our hope in you." Link to the National Day of Prayer Web site (www.ndptf.org) for more information.

WRITTEN by Mark Alexander, publisher of The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us), in his email essay dated May 7th, 2009

Kemp

Jack Kemp died this weekend, but the ideas he fostered with unbounded energy deserve another look. Kemp was more than an adherent of supply-side economic theory. He was a zealot. But he was just as vocal about his support for minorities and the need for the GOP to connect with them.

The NY Times' Adam Clymer, who wrote the paper's obituary on Kemp which appeared Sunday morning, said yesterday that Kemp:

"was one of the strongest and most consistent voices within the Party of Lincoln for the need to listen to, and heed, the views and needs of people who would not necessarily be viewed as the base of the GOP."

In the obit, Clymer pointed out that Kemp had

"campaigned in New York for Nelson A. Rockefeller and in California for Ronald Reagan in their gubernatorial races; and for Richard M. Nixon and Barry Goldwater in their presidential bids."

Imagine the howling from talk radio hosts, and cable news hosts if a card-carrying member of the Conservative wing of the Republican Party dared to campaign for someone like Nelson Rockefeller today.

No one ever worked with, around, or for Jack Kemp and didn't have an opinion. Jack Kemp was a force of nature. No matter what the venue, he was fully capable of taking over the room.

During a holiday visit to the White House a few years ago, Kemp waited in the line to have his photo taken with the President and Mrs. Bush. The line went down a hallway then around the walls of a holding room before we got to the room where the photos were actually being taken.

On that occasion, when he got to the holding room, Kemp picked a chair in the middle of the room and held court, chatting happily with those of us inching our way through the line.

Jack Kemp was a fighter from beginning to end. He was anything but a shoo-in to be a professional quarterback. According to the Associated Press:

The Detroit Lions picked Kemp in the 17th round of the 1957 NFL draft, but he was cut before the season began. After being released by three more NFL teams and the Canadian Football League over the next three years, he joined the AFL's Los Angeles Chargers as a free agent in 1960. A waiver foul-up two years later would land him with the Bills, who got him at the bargain price of $100.

Kemp led the Bills to two American Football League championships and was voted the AFL's Most Valuable Player. Not bad for a guy drafted 203rd in the 1957 NFL draft.

Newt Gingrich said Sunday:


Jack had an enormous heart and an unquenchable spirit for staying on offense. He lived life as a quarterback always seeking the next touchdown.
His greatest contributions in the 1970s were teaching the Republican Party to be idea oriented optimistic and committed to economic growth instead of devoted to austerity.

Only Ronald Reagan was more important in shaping modern conservatism.

As a Congressman from Buffalo, New York from 1971 to 1989 Kemp's devotion to the idea that lower taxes would generate economic growth was put into practice by a Democrat-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate during Ronald Reagan's first term when tax rates were rolled back about 25 percent across-the-board.

In spite of dire predictions from the Left, inflation which, under Jimmy Carter had exploded to over 13 percent a year, collapsed to about four percent. Not only that, but the proportion of income taxes paid by middle class wage-earners decreased by about 32 percent while the proportion of income taxes paid by the wealthiest tax payers increased by about 20 percent.

According to a Joint Economic Committee of Congress report in 1996 looking back at what was known as the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut, the reason was "Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income."

Even President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in wrote in a 1994 report: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."

Jack Kemp: Professional quarterback. Congressman. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Defender of minority rights. American.

WRITTEN by Rich Galen and published today by TownHall.com

Winning the Future With Real Change

Some of the biggest influences on me in recent years have been the ideas and writings of Newt Gingrich. The man is simply the single most eloquent spokesperson for the Conservative cause since Ronald Reagan himself. In fact, blasphemy acknowledged, he may actually be an even stronger advocate for the cause. Three of his books, "To Renew America" (1995), "Winning the Future", and now "Real Change" (2008) are absolute must-reads, particularly "Real Change", which was just released this year and is much more updated in scope and time. Gingrich is a college history professor, historian and novelist who has written outstanding works of living-history fiction on both the Civil War and Pearl Harbor as well. In the concept of 'living history', you take known historical events and people and 'adjust' the facts/results to show 'what might have happened' had certain things gone a different way. In the real world, Gingrich was first elected to Congress from Georgia back in 1978. He was re-elected 10 times, and eventually became the architect of the 'Republican Revolution', which saw the Republican Party take control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years thanks largely to an effort that he led called the 'Contract With America'. Gingrich became the Speaker of the House, leading numerous Republican challenges to President Bill Clinton's liberal Democratic agenda, and was named by Time magazine as the Person of the Year in 1995. Newt Gingrich is now 65, and may have seen his opportunities to lead the party as a Presidential candidate pass him by, but he remains a leading Conservative activist, thinker, and teacher. In a year when the Democratic nominee, Barrack Obama, talks incessantly about "change" to a taxing, weakening, liberal agenda, 'Real Change' is well worth your reading time, and in future Blog entries I am going to talk about some of the particular ideas that it puts forth on various topics of importance to our families and to the nation.