A nutcase sabotages the prolife movement...

Found this on Drudge; http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090531/ap_on_re_us/us_tiller_shooting

I've said it before, the battle lines are becoming more distinct and the rhetoric stronger. It doesn't get any stronger than this.

Those of us on the prolife side better suck it up and get ready for an increase in animosity and vitriol from the baby killers. One nut job like this acting on his own and the rest of us are vilified and denounced as murdering scum who want to enslave women while turning the clock of civilization backwards. If anyone has trouble believing that, consider how often the bombing of abortion clinics is brought up. Unless I'm wrong there have been a grand total of two clinics bombed (and that's two too many) and the last one was over ten years ago. Yet these acts are routinely cited to demonize prolifers.

It's because of incidents like this and their aftermath I refuse to have any prolife bumper stickers on my car. Not because I fear what anyone would do to me, but because my wife and our children routinely use that vehicle also.

Stand by folks, life is going to get REALLY interesting the next few decades!

UPDATE: Father Z has some very good comments about this over at his blog, here's a taste;
"...On this Pentecost Sunday remember that when the Apostles broke out of their room into the public square they did not go forth into safety or comfort. Filled with the Holy Spirit and focused on the mission Christ gave them, they went out with a clear identity into the public square at the risk of life and limb and nearly all of the Apostles died as martyrs."

The rest of his thoughts are here, I recommend a quick read for all concerned on this topic.

Just how stupid can someone be?

I've never dealt drugs but if I did I'd make sure to find the right location. Not like this one!

TEXARKANA, Ark. (AP) - A man caught breaking into the Miller County Jail last summer will soon leave his cell there for one in an Arkansas prison. Bobby Finley, 20, was accused of planning to sell drugs and tobacco inside the jail. Finley pleaded guilty Thursday to five felony counts and was sentenced to a total of 19 years in prison.

But the sentences are to run consecutively and top out at five years.

Guards caught Finley using bolt cutters to get through the chain-link fence that surrounds the jail. Prosecutors said Finley had cocaine and marijuana in his possession.

"In 19 years of prosecuting you always encounter cases that make you believe you've seen it all—until you see a case of this nature," Deputy Prosecutor Carlton Jones said. "It never ceases to amaze me."

Finley was found mentally competent to stand trial following a psychological evaluation.

Finley will get credit for time served for the 316 days he spent in jail since getting caught.

In his deal with prosecutors, Finley was sentenced to five years each on two possession counts and three years each on three counts of furnishing prohibited substances: cocaine, marijuana and tobacco.

When Finley was arrested last summer, Arkansas State Trooper Scott Clark investigated and said Finley was a moment away from getting inside the fence.

"This is the first one I've ever worked where somebody went to so much trouble to remove an obstacle so they could bring contraband into the jail," Clark said at the time. "It's definitely a first for me."

A nation of lotus eaters.

Over at The Black Sphere there's a post regarding repeal of the 22nd Amendment. Seems a Congressional Representative has authored some legislation for that purpose. For those not up on what the 22nd is all about (I wasn't), it limits Presidents to two terms in office. Kind of safeguards us from becoming a dictatorship.

Anyway, this Congressional nitwit is pushing for an end to the 22nd for the umpteenth time. He'd done it since 1997 so the man himself doesn't necessarily drink anyone's Kool-Aid.

Normally I'd put concerns about this sort of thing on the same level as taking this group seriously; http://www.nibiruancouncil.com/html/galacticfederation.html (yep, they're for real folks!)

However since B.O. has come to office some disturbing trends have begun, they include;

1) The continuing love affair between B.O. and the MSM. I'd have thought the newsies would be tired of lapdog status by now and would show some teeth to their "master". It ain't happening. Not yet anyway.

Along with this I'll note the bias in the MSM. I've gotten a taste of it here from a supposedly conservative newspaper (Dallas Morning News) and their non coverage of pro life legislation being debated in the state legislature. There has been zippo word on any of it up to a month ago, since that time I've cancelled my subscription so I'm not certain if it changed. Wouldn't hold my breath though.

The only way I was able to follow the legislation was to do the legwork myself, check out the state senate website every few days and just get motivated. Let's be honest folks, how many of us know that has to be done in order to stay informed on ANY topic? Prior to this year I certainly didn't.

2) The rift between traditional Christians and their liberal counterparts on the topic of B.O., seems the libs drink that Kool-Aid by the gallon. This would fit in nicely with anyone trying to marginalize the influence of organized religion in the USA. As an example look at the chorus of Catholic yes men eagerly defending everything about B.O., once this administration gets enough of them you can bet there will be some actions directed against those who speak out against our Abortionist in Chief. Kind of like what's happening here in Connecticut: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16145.

So unless the American people wake the hell up we just might see a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.

Solzhenitsyn once wrote that a nation gets the leaders it deserves, God help us if that's true.

New from GM (Government Motors)

Found via The Black Sphere

More on the Alameda School District...

Update on this story, found at Focus on The Family's website. Funny how it didn't make the mainstream news.

The same day the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 — the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman — a school district in the state essentially decided to disregard the ruling.

The Alameda School Board voted 3-1 on Tuesday in favor of a curriculum that promotes same-sex relationships beginning in the first grade.

“This curriculum defines family as a group of people living together,” said Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action. “The first-graders are introduced to a book called ‘Who’s In a Family?’ and this book shows herds of male elephants as an example of a family.

"Is this really what we want to be teaching the next generation — that there’s nothing unique about mothers and fathers and that a family is nothing more than a group of individuals?”

Parents are not allowed to opt their kids out of the program, which school officials claim falls under "anti-discrimination” provisions.

Cushman said family advocates in other states need to take note.

“Parents should be on the alert," she said, "for so-called 'anti-discrimination' or 'safe school' measures being used as an excuse to push this sort of teaching onto kids as young as 6 or 7 years old.”

Pro-family groups are considering legal action.

When the right to die becomes a duty

by Colleen Carroll Campbell of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Linda Fleming, a 66-year-old, legally bankrupt cancer patient living alone in Sequim, Wash., recently became the first person to kill herself under her state's new assisted-suicide law. As in neighboring Oregon, where a similar law has facilitated more than 400 suicides since 1997, the measure that paved the way for Fleming's death allows suicidal adults to obtain lethal prescriptions as long as they are competent and have been diagnosed with a terminal condition by two physicians.

Assisted-suicide advocates hail such laws as progressive and liberating. Yet even in Washington, where 58 percent of voters approved the assisted-suicide measure last fall, many critics remain unconvinced.

They worry that such laws will change a doctor's role from healer to executioner. They fret that the assisted-suicide push will siphon resources from palliative care and confirm severely ill patients' suspicions that their lives are burdensome and worthless. And they fear that, as our society struggles to care for an aging population in a worsening economy, the right to die could morph into a duty to die.

Their fears are well-founded. Consider the case of Barbara Wagner, an Oregon woman who was diagnosed with a recurrence of lung cancer last year at age 64. Her survival prospects were grim, but her oncologist offered her one final hope: a $4,000-a-month drug that could slow the cancer's growth and give her another four to six months to live. Wagner, a great-grandmother and retired bus driver living in a low-income apartment, could not afford the drug herself. So she asked her state-run health insurance plan for help.

The response she received shocked her. Oregon state officials sent a letter saying that they would not pay for medication to extend her life, but they would foot the drug bill for an assisted suicide — an expenditure of roughly $50.

Assisted-suicide laws like the one in Wagner's state are a potential boon to tight-fisted insurers and bureaucrats looking to cut health care costs. And the growing acceptance of assisted suicide and euthanasia, even in states that do not explicitly permit them, makes it easier for frustrated physicians and caregivers to convince themselves and others that severely ill and disabled patients would be better off dead.

Just this month in Wisconsin, a disability-rights group filed a lawsuit against the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics after doctors there withheld treatment for pneumonia from two developmentally disabled patients, apparently because the patients had low "quality of life." Neither was in a persistent vegetative state and, in the case of one patient, family members who initially agreed with the doctor's recommendation to withhold food and medication reconsidered when their relative awoke and asked to eat. According to the lawsuit, the doctor balked at the family's request to restart treatment, and they felt pressured to hasten their loved one's death.

Another unnerving Wisconsin case made headlines last year when a state appeals court ruled that the wife and the adult daughter of a terminally ill man who shot himself could inherit his estate even if they helped him end his life. According to the Associated Press, the man's other children had contested his will, alleging that the wife and daughter, knowing he was suicidal, had taken him to a cabin, given him a loaded shotgun and left him alone. The court said that even if the allegations were true, the women could keep his money.

Such rulings defy common sense. Sadly, they are only the beginning of the abuses and ill-considered decisions we will see as the push for assisted suicide spreads from state to state. The ghastly rationale behind that push — that suicide is the answer to human suffering — demands a forceful response from the millions of Americans who still believe that every life counts.

What gets my attention is the mindset by otherwise well intentioned people regarding this. No longer is life automatically considered sacred but now the pluses and minuses are tallied up against one another. If the minuses are larger in number then no one loses sleep over counseling the patient to kill themselves. "Culture of death" indeed.

That last phrase keeps popping into my mind as I read not only the story pasted here but the one preceding it which dealt with school sanctioned abortions in California. Our culture, not just our nation, has definitely come to the point where life is treated as just another commodity. This leads to a devaluing of intangibles such as honor, patriotism, sacrifice for others, in short all the traditional virtues. They're now on the dust heap of modern society.

I know that in other times of history there have been spiritual awakenings and revivals. That doesn't automatically mean we'll see it happen again. We may be witnessing the last decline of true humanity in the human race, to be replaced by the values of the jungle.

A long night may be falling from which there will be no new dawning.

Sorry for the morbid thoughts, lately it seems any decency at all is under siege.

California: no parental notification needed for abortions.

Found this via Pewsitter at the California Chronicle. Looks like the horse has already left the barn. I copied the article in it's entirety in order that it not disappear down some editorial black hole, as is the case with so many news sites.

School-assisted abortions in California for minors, it's legal and there is no parental notification

Ericha Parks

If you are a parent with boys, exhale a sigh of relief. If you are the parent of a minor daughter, you might need a whole new education on public education. It is a fact: your minor daughter has the right to an abortion in California, without your consent or notification. You may remember California Propositions 73 and 85 on the ballot which would have required parental notification of a minor's abortion, but it was defeated by 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent. How did this law bypassing parental consent come to be? In California, the operative case that reaches beyond Roe v. Wade, is a California case upheld by the Supreme Court, American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lundren. This case argued that the California Constitution should not be changed to include parental notification and that a minor's right to choose with regard to a pregnancy was the same as an adult.

Whether or not your personal beliefs are pro-choice or pro-life, many parents agree that parental notification of any medical treatment or procedure should be the responsibility and the right of the parent and not the government. If you think about it, students cannot even take an aspirin at school without parental consent. Yes, I said the word "student," that's because, believe it or not, minor students are entitled to the assistance of the school to execute an abortion, whereby purposefully bypassing the parents. It's hard to believe that even truancy laws are legally waved so that a minor can exercise her right to an abortion.

California law, backed by many liberal interest groups, quite literally provide a safe haven for teens to make the difficult choice to end a pregnancy without any consequence which ranges from parental disappointment to school absence. But what are the consequences? First of all, the emotional consequence. Does the government believe that teenage girls might not have the lasting emotional affect of this difficult decision? What about the minor's support system, her family? Because of this "pass card," my belief is that the teen is assured to never tell her parents of the traumatic experience because not only did she have an abortion but she did it without the input of her family, adding another layer of anguish. Some psychologists might argue that this is a decision that needs to be weighed far more carefully than the government might take for granted. What about pre-existing conditions? If a teen is pregnant and sees an easy way out by seeking a school-assisted abortion, it's not likely that she will reveal an interfering medical history even if she could fully understand it. In fact, the World Health Organization states that in order to have a "safe abortion" a full medical history and screening is required to identify pre-existing conditions such as bleeding disorders, immune disorders, allergies and medications. What about the rights of the father? I guess that does not count at all.

On a more practical level, if the state does not consider a minor mature enough to vote, how does it expect a minor to make such a consequential decision such as having an abortion on her own? Where do you draw the line of maturity, is it individual or is it age? I guess that only matters if you suddenly find yourself pregnant.

If you look to the history of this legal right, you will find that liberal interest groups such as the ACLU are the driving force behind this. The ACLU states that they "have worked hard to secure this right," as stated in their pamphlet to minors and public educators. The ACLU further assures that it "continues to use litigation, legislative advocacy, public education, and grassroots organizing to protect the rights" of abortion for all. Planned Parenthood boasts to minors that they will help them even "If you are not able to tell your parent or guardian about your decision to have an abortion."


Why the push to have minors' rights protected in regard to pregnancy? Many people who I have spoken to, mostly health care professionals, state that the rate of abuse by parents directed at the minor increases with the emotional prospect of a teen pregnancy. In some cases, parents might force a minor to keep a child against the teen's wishes. Some families might disown their minor daughter. These all seem like plausible side affects of a teen pregnancy; so many emotions are raw. But perhaps that is the very reason why this decision is so important and should be thought through carefully between the minor and her family. I tend to believe that most parents would handle this situation with a level head once the initial shock subsides. Should reasonable parents be in the dark, making it impossible to be supportive of their daughter in the face of this punitive legal remedy?

I spoke with a local high school counselor about this very topic. I agreed not to use his name. The process works as follows: a teen makes an appointment with a school counselor and tells the counselor that she is pregnant. The minor is immediately given a pamphlet outlining her rights in this regard. The counselor assures her that nobody will be notified of the abortion and the counselor makes the arrangements, including transportation. The counselor further excuses the absence from school without any notice to the parents, as if the student had been in class the entire day. I asked how many abortions each year on average? His reply, "This is an affluent community and teens are not eager to ruin their parents' dreams for them with an unwanted pregnancy. So, our statistics are possibly higher than those of other areas where teens might keep the baby. We are looking at about 40-45 average every year."

As I look around my son's high school, I wonder which 40 girls are facing this lonely secret without the support or help of her family. I am saddened by it. But my sadness is tempered by a measured outrage. This seems so unnatural. I did not believe that this legal remedy was possible, seeing as my son can't be administered bactine for a cut at school.

Once I did some checking, I saw it for myself, in black-and-white:

Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec 123450 states that, "An unemancipated minor may obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian"

Cal. Educ. Code Section 46010.1, states that, "The governing board of each school district shall, each academic year, notify pupils in grades 7 to 12, and the parents or guardians of all pupils enrolled in the district, that school authorities may excuse any pupil from school for the purpose of obtaining confidential medical services without the consent of the pupil's parent or guardian."

66 Ops.Atty.Gen. 244 (7-28-83) states that, "Public school officials have the authority to excuse a pupil from regularly scheduled classes to obtain medical services for which they may legally consent, including abortion, without notification to a parent of guardian.

In the case of American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, the supporting case law, states that the state "authorize(s) minors to consent to what are considered to be particularly sensitive medical services. (See Fam. Code, §§ 6920-6929)." And that, "A minor of any age may consent to care related to the prevention or treatment of pregnancy. (Fam. Code, § 6925.)"

For whatever anecdotal evidence is worth, I can't count the number of times I'd attend an AA meeting and hear some woman sob out how she'd had an abortion in her youth and it haunted her to the present day. With policies like this in place it's a certainty there will be many more such scenarios in coming years.

On Sotomayor's nomination...

The nomination for Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice is nothing for the prolife/conservative values voters to get deeply invested in.

By all accounts she's an intellectual lightweight with the possibility of becoming a loose cannon on the liberal's ship. Her position on abortion is largely unkown so she wouldn't qualify as a rabid "kill 'em all, they're just tissue" type of proabort.

Those of us who hold traditional values need to choose our battles wisely. This is one to forego.

B.O.'s pick for the Supremes?

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- President Barack Obama is expected to name his replacement for retiring pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice David Souter. When he makes his nomination, which could come as early as Tuesday, pro-abortion 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Diane Wood has become the front-runner.

Wood is one of several pro-abortion judges or political figures observers have placed on Obama's likely short list of candidates. Over the weekend, she appeared to rise to the top of the list.

Wood is considered a top legal mind by left-wing political activists as someone who can counter the legal acumen of Supreme Court jurists like Chief Justice John Roberts and Antonin Scalia.

However, her personal connections to Obama and her gender are causing some to consider her the most likely pick.

Abortion advocates have been lobbying Obama to name a woman to replace Souter and join pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only other woman on the top court. But Wood's relationship with Obama -- she also taught law at the University of Chicago law school where Obama was a colleague until 2004 -- may put her in the catbird's seat.

Several top pro-life and conservative sources told LifeNews.com over the weekend that they believed Obama would select Wood.

If he does so, Obama will be picking an abortion advocate who pro-life organizations will strongly oppose.

As a member of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, she has a long history of taking the pro-abortion side when it comes to pro-life issues.

Wood ruled against bans on partial-birth abortion in cases involving legislation from Wisconsin and Illinois. She joined the federal court in ruling that Wisconsin's law was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's first ruling on partial-birth abortions in 2000.

Judge Wood also ruled in favor of abortion advocates by allowing them to misuse the RICO law designed to control mob activities to sue pro-life protesters.

The Supreme Court twice overturned her opinion and, in February 2006, ruled a second time that federal racketeering laws used against mob bosses can't be used against pro-life advocates who protest abortions.

Wood kept alive the lawsuit against pro-life advocates even though the high court had already issued an 8-0 decision in their favor.

Joseph Scheidler, the defendant in the lawsuit, said after the decision that Wood " claimed an affiliation with Chicago NOW and Planned Parenthood throughout the duration of the" case.

Finally, Wood wrote a dissent in a case concerning an Indiana law requiring counseling and informed consent prior to an abortion. Similar laws in other states have reduced the number of abortions by giving women information about abortion risks and alternatives and have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Very sad.

This here; http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/2009/05/best-93-days-of-my-life.html

Found via Creative Minority Report.

Please pray for baby Faith and her mother. God rest her soul.

R.I.P.

The following military personnel were killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan during the period of May 4-10. Please spare a moment to pray for them and their families.

Staff Sgt. Randy S. Agno, 29, HI
Pvt. Justin P. Hartford ,21, NY
Spc. Shawn D. Sykes, 28 ,VA
Lt. Mark Evison, 26, England
Spc. Lukasz D. Saczek, 23, IL
Spc. Omar M. Albrak, 21, IL
Cpl. Sean Binnie, 22, Ireland
Cpl. Kumar Pun, 31, Nepal
Sergeant Ben Ross ,34, Wales
Rifleman Adrian Sheldon, 25, England

May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Gay agenda rammed down parental throats...

When I read crap like this I wonder how long it will be before Texas starts to see the like of it. Folks, we're going down the tubes. At this rate we'll have a Congressional resolution apologizing to Sodom & Gomorrah for God's bigoted wrath. Wonder how they'll work reparations into it?

Alameda Unified School District board Alameda County, Calif., May 24, 2009 / 05:58 pm (CNA).- A California school district decision to mandate a new curriculum requiring children as young as five years old to be taught about homosexual and transgender communities has prompted significant protest from parents who charged that a "political agenda" is pressing age-inappropriate material upon their children. (No shit!)

The Unified School District in Alameda has proposed a curriculum with the stated intention of addressing bullying, respect and acceptance. The curriculum includes a 45-minute Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) lesson once a year from kindergarten through fifth grade. The kindergarten lesson will focus on the harm of teasing while the fifth graders will study sexual orientation stereotypes, Fox News reports. (Wonder how the LGBT folks got involved? My guess is they're actively participating in school district board meetings. Anyone not wanting their kids to be subjected to this needs to get out of the recliner, turn off the tube and hustle on down there too. It's the politically active groups that school administrations cave in to. Not doing the same will continue to bring insufficient reactive responses from parents. Being proactive is the name of the game. Goodbye American Idol! Having said that, I'll add it helps to record EVERYTHING. The rest of this story bears that out.)

Second grade course material includes a children’s book about homosexual penguins trying to create a family. The book is titled "And Tango Makes Three." (You. Have. To. Be. Shitting. Me.)

Protesting parents in Alameda, a suburb of San Francisco and Oakland, said the curriculum is definitely not age-appropriate and the issues are best learned at home. They were also angry they will not be allowed to keep their children out of the classes. (Hello! Someone is aggressively pushing an agenda.)

"I believe these children are far too young to be learning about what these issues mean," Alaina Stewart, an Alameda mother of three elementary school children, told Fox News. "These are adult issues and they are being thrust upon the children." (Yep. Second graders should be worried more about G.I. Joe action figures and Barbie dolls. Let the kids be kids.)

One father of schoolchildren charged that the policy would violate the First Amendment rights of those who don’t support homosexuality because of their religion. (Amen to that one. I'd hope they get someone along the lines of the Thomas More Law Center involved in this.)

Kirsten Vital, superintendent of the Alameda Unified School District, said students reported feeling bullied on LGBT issues. (How? Calling someone a "fag" maybe? A 45 minute presentation on LGBT issues along with schoolbooks like the one cited above is going overboard in addressing name calling. It's actually using the bullying topic as a cover for indoctrination of the kids. Wonder what side of the plate this superintendent swings from?)

"This work is in response to teachers asking for tools to combat name-calling and bullying at school," she told Fox News. (Like swatting mosquitoes by firing cannonballs at them.)

One parent named Michael Williams said he thought LGBT issues would come up anyway and that teachers should be prepared to help kids "respond appropriately." (Useful idiot.)

Another father named David, who asked that his last name be withheld, told Fox News an "overwhelming" majority of parents spoke against the LGBT instruction at one of the school board meetings, but their protests had little effect. (Go figure. So some were proactive and got shut down. I'd say it's trial lawyer time. Look for the ACLU to get involved.)

"The chairman of the school board repeatedly claimed to the audience that the curriculum is evenly supported and opposed," he said. "I am beginning to lose confidence of the board, as it seems to have a preconceived political agenda and [does] not truly represent their constituents’ opposition to the curriculum." (Ya think?)

Karen England, a spokeswoman for the conservative policy advocacy group Capitol Resource Institute, noted that there are five protected categories under anti-discrimination laws but the curriculum only focuses on sexual orientation. (I'm shocked, schocked I tell you to find there's an agenda at work here!)

She told Fox News she believes the curriculum committee purposely excluded religion. England suggested "an agenda is being pushed." (And I made my last comment before reading this. It's that painfully obvious.)

A May 21 report from the Capitol Resource Institute said that school board meetings had been packed with people and claimed 90 percent of those who spoke opposed the curriculum. The only speakers allowed during the Monday continuation of a May 12 meeting were those who had attended the first meeting. (Wonder why nobody taped the proceedings? Five gets you ten it isn't allowed. Bet the school board learned a lot from the Rodney King incident, especially the need to muzzle bad press.)

Saying that speakers were "courteous" and presented "well-reasoned, articulate opposition," the Capitol Resource Institute reported that hecklers "repeatedly booed and hissed when parents and students rose to express their opposition. (Who'd a thunk it?)

One man angry that he was not allowed to address the audience about his support for the homosexual schoolwork physically charged one woman presenter, forcing other men in the audience to come to her defense and forcibly remove the attacker. (Was he going to hit her with his purse?)

One father denounced the actions of homosexual advocates, saying "This bullying is taking place by the people you're asking me to entrust my children to!" (Hey Dad, think "homeschooling", think "Idaho" or "Texas". BTW, the weather is lovely here.)

He also said he had recently been labeled a bigot and a white supremacist for expressing his opposition to what he called social indoctrination. (First defense of liberal idiots.)

According to the Capitol Resource Institute, the few speakers who favored the curriculum repeatedly stated that the LGBT curriculum was "just a start" and "the first step" in teaching equality in classrooms. (Something to worry about if you're a parent dependent on public schools.) Some reportedly told the board that no parental opt-out should be allowed because the children of curriculum opponents were those who most needed the instruction.

Another speaker at the meeting, an Alameda principal and teacher for 45 years, said the curriculum would place teachers in a very difficult position. She expressed concern over the questions sexual classroom teaching would prompt in young children and was booed by supporters of the curriculum. (Hey what would she know anyway? All power to the (queer) people!)

The final vote on the curriculum will take place on the evening of Tuesday May 26. (That sucking sound you'll hear will be kids getting yanked out of Alameda public schools, asap.)

Seems even being proactive doesn't work sometimes. These parents were pushed off to the side and their wishes for their children disregarded, experienced educators who supported them were marginalized. Somebody had an agenda right from Jump Street and was going to bulldoze it through. I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut we'll see courtroom action of some sort over this one, especially in the unlikely event the curriculum gets voted down this Tuesday.

For those wishing to voice their opinions, I've a link to the Alameda Unified School District web page here: http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us/

Parents? We don't need no stinking parents!!

Could we just give Wisconsin to Canada? Seriously, I love cheese but will be willing to make the sacrifice necessary for this crap to stay out of the nation at large. This gem was found via Pewsitter at Catholic News Agency.

Madison, Wis., May 23, 2009 / 01:07 pm (CNA).- The Wisconsin Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee is scheduled to vote today on Gov. Jim Doyle’s proposal to expand a confidential “family planning” program to boys aged 15 to 17. Critics charged that the proposal further encourages teens to go behind their parents’ backs and neglects their moral development. (Question: Who would wind up paying for these services? No brain surgery required to answer that one!)

At present, Wisconsin’s Medicaid Family Planning Waiver Program provides taxpayer-funded birth control without charge to teen girls in the same age range without their parents’ knowledge or consent. (And we wonder why so many kids are getting pregnant. Here's a little known bit of news; only ABSTINENCE is 100% effective when practiced! Everything else has a failure rate.) Federal and state law prohibits parents from being notified that their minor daughters are receiving free contraceptives under the program, a press release from Pro-Life Wisconsin reports.

“Providing free, taxpayer-funded birth control to 15-year-old boys and girls behind parents’ backs is horrible public policy, and we urge the finance committee to block expansion of this offensive program,” commented Matt Sande, Pro-Life Wisconsin’s director of legislation. “Parents are naturally concerned about the sexual health of their teen children, not only to protect them physically but to guide them morally.”

Sande argued the state should reinforce the parent-child relationship. (Fat chance of that happening.)

“Who do we want to be the confidants of our sons and daughters – parents, or Planned Parenthood? That is the question parents in this state should be asking themselves, including parents on the committee,” he continued. (The nanny state has a different answer than you or I would.)

At present the Medicaid program provides family planning services and supplies for women aged 15 to 44 who are at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. While women applying for the program are considered presumptively eligible for services and exempted from co-payments, family income is disregarded for women under 19 who are unmarried and childless.

“Therefore almost every teen girl in the state is financially eligible,” Pro-Life Wisconsin said.

Gov. Doyle’s proposal expands the program to men aged 15 to 44. (Can Wisconsin voters recall their governor?)

“Not only is the Family Planning Waiver Program offensive to parents, but it contributes to an increase in underage pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases by encouraging sexual promiscuity,” Sande remarked. “Every day, 8,000 teens become infected with an STD. It’s time the state reexamines the so-called benefits of ‘family planning’ for Wisconsin’s children.”

Eight states prevent minor girls from enrolling in family planning waiver programs by limiting the programs to women who are at least 19 years of age. Three states limit their programs to women who are at least 18 years of age.

Slowly the propaganda machine is assembled.

So here's a piece I found on Drudge about B.O. shutting out the press while he plays a pickup game with the UConn Huskie girls; http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/do-you-want-you.html

The man almost always relies on a teleprompter and now seems to selectively bar the public press from newsworthy events. Yeah, a basketball game with college kids is small change. I'd never try treating it as anything else.

But it's an insight of how his administration will be run the next four years.

I'm not worried so much about him, I've said it before that B.O. is just symbolic of our times. He's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Look around at the culture supporting him, THAT is where the real problems lie!

The MSM is still eating out of his hand and will eagerly roll over for this. They'll become accustomed to their news information being selectively fed to them. So when succeeding Chief Executives do the same thing it'll be seen as no big deal.

And our indoctrination will continue.

School does the right thing, ACLU threatens lawsuit.

I found this gem via Pewsitter. Parents & grandparents might want to think about where this crap will lead us.

The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties is threatening to sue the Ramona Unified School District after a sixth grade student was forbidden from presenting a project on homosexual rights icon Harvey Milk to her classmates without first getting written permission from the parents of other students. (Sixth grade, that puts the age group at about 11-13. Right when puberty hits so giving a fluff piece on some gay figure would go a long way towards encouraging homosexual experiments. Just my opinion.)

According to a press release from the ACLU, Natalie Jones, a sixth grader at Mt. Woodson Elementary School in Ramona, was told by school officials that her classmates must first get written permission from their parents before she could present a PowerPoint presentation about Milk to them. Officials at the kindergarten through sixth grade school of 530 students said school board policy governing the presentation of materials regarding family life or sex education required signed permission from the parents of the students involved. (Nice to see some schools actually pay attention to the parent's wishes.)

According to the ACLU, “the school violated Natalie Jones’s free speech rights when it refused to allow her to give the presentation in class. Instead, the school improperly required classmates to get parental permission to see the presentation during a lunch recess.” (Now hold on a minute. This kid could give her presentation, just not in the classroom. Aren't her free speech rights thereby guaranteed in the same manner as those students wishing to pray who have to rally round a flagpole during recess? )

“This whole thing is unbelievable – first my daughter got called into the principal’s office as if she were in some kind of trouble, and then they treated her presentation like it was something icky,” Natalie’s mother, Bonnie Jones, told the ACLU, according to their press release. “Harvey Milk was an elected official in this state and an important person in history. (Important for what? Other than helping to pass the nation's first pooper scooper law the guy did nothing notable. His fame is chiefly due to getting killed by a nut case. Comments like this shouldn't go unchallenged, next thing you know we'll have a national holiday named after this guy. Ooops, never mind. It's already happening!) To say my daughter’s presentation is ‘sex education’ because Harvey Milk happened to be gay is completely wrong.”

“Natalie Jones, who was inspired to write about Harvey Milk after watching Sean Penn win an Academy Award for portraying him, got a score of 49 out of a possible 50 points on the written report,” said the ACLU’s statement. “Students were then told to make PowerPoint presentations about their reports, which they would show to other students in the class. The day before Natalie was to give her 12-page presentation (WTF! 12 pages! About what?) she was called into the principal’s office and told she couldn’t do so. When Bonnie Jones spoke with the superintendent about the presentation, he said Natalie couldn't give her presentation because of a district board policy on ‘Family Life/Sex Education.’” (Gee, is it JUST possible a presentation inspired by a movie centered around the man and making his sexual perversion at least a secondary plot line something that might JUST have fallen under guidelines of the district policy? Since the original report had to be graded by school officials is it JUST possible they knew what they were doing?)

The ACLU said that, a few days after Natalie was called into the principal’s office, the school district sent letters to the parents of all the students in the class “explaining that her presentation would be held during a lunch recess on May 8, and that students could only attend if they had parental permission.”

Ramona Unified School District policy provides, “Parents/guardians shall be notified in writing about any instruction in which human reproductive organs and their functions, processes, or sexually transmitted diseases are described, illustrated, or discussed. In addition, before any instruction on family life, human sexuality, AIDS or sexually transmitted diseases is given, the parent/guardian shall be provided with written notice explaining that the instruction will be given.” (...functions, processes...are described, illustrated or discussed. Would that discussion include a choice by an elected official to have his organs "function" in an other than normal manner? )

“The principal and superintendent grossly misinterpreted school policy,” said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. “They illegally censored student speech protected by the First Amendment and the California Education Code. Writing or talking about a gay historical figure who advocated for equal rights for LGBT Californians is in no way the same thing as talking about sex, and school officials should not pretend otherwise.” (No, but placing that historical figure in a favorable light and mentioning his sexual preferences DOES bring the conversation around to sex.)

“Schools that act as if any mention of the existence of gay people is something too controversial or ‘sensitive’ to discuss are doing a disservice to their students,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s national LGBT Project. “This school completely overstepped its bounds in trying to silence Natalie Jones by shunting her presentation off to a lunch recess time and misusing a school policy to justify requiring parental permission to see it.” (I feel sorry for the school here. If they'd just allowed the kid to present her fluff piece there would have been hell to pay from some (rightfully) indignant parents. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.)

Neither Blair-Loy nor Gill made reference to the “human sexuality” provision in the school district’s policy.

The ACLU sent a letter to the school demanding a written apology to Natalie Jones, as well as an apology letter to the parents who received notification from the school about the Milk presentation. The letter also demands that Natalie be given an opportunity to make her presentation to members of her class, and that the school district “clarify in writing that the parental notification and permission portion of the ‘Family Life/Sex Education’ policy only applies to the curricula identified as ‘course content’ for ‘Family Life/Sex Education instruction.’” (So what happens to kids whose parents get a heads up on this and keep their children home rather than be subjected to indoctrination the parents disapprove of? Do they get charged with an unauthorized absence? Speaking of First Amendment rights, will Christians have any in the fallout from this?)

The ACLU gave the Ramona Unified School District five days to respond to its demands “or it may file a lawsuit on Bonnie and Natalie Jones’s behalf.” (One time, just one time I'd like to hear of somebody receiving such an ultimatum from the ACLU and telling them to piss off!)

Seriously, if the girl had done a report on some Christian religious figure and the school followed the same path, just where would the ACLU be on this? My guess is they'd be suing because public school facilities were being utilized to promote religion.

School: He is a he and not a she!

OMAHA, Nebraska, May 20, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Catholic school has turned down re-admittance of an eight-year-old boy whose mother has granted the child's requests to be dressed and treated as a girl. (Three cheers for a Catholic school acting like one!)

Rather than continue to attend St. Wenceslaus Catholic school, where the child dressed in a boy's uniform in previous years, the boy will now attend a public school in girl's clothes. (Another reason for private or home schooling.)

"She's been a girl since the beginning, everything about her, the way she dances and skips around and the things she's attracted to. It's more than toys and clothes," the mother told a local news station. (Mom needs a checkup from the neck up.)

"The child is welcomed to come, but it would not be acceptable to change the child's gender and present as a girl," said archdiocesan chancellor Father Joseph Taphorn. (Get 'em padre!)

According to Catholic anthropology, which considers a person's gender an objective physical reality, individuals with Gender Identity Disorder (GID) achieve healing by working to overcome deep-seated mental aversion to their genetically-determined gender. (Which is a nice way of saying, "Get used to what you see in the mirror. It's yours for life!)

This runs contrary to modern mainstream ideology, which posits gender as subject to personal interpretation or choice. (Bullshit. Why not just "interpret" yourself as a kangaroo, it makes as much sense.) Thus, in recent years many in the psychiatric community have begun encouraging gender perceptions with superficial alterations such as cross-dressing, hormone therapy, and cosmetic surgery. (I used to refer to psychiatrists as "witch doctors", maybe that was closer to the truth than not. Kind of a slam on witch doctors though.)

However, several experts continue to assert that the phenomenon stems from a disorder essentially mental in nature, and therefore ill-served by physical accommodation. (Translation: the kid is nuts, so is the mother for caving in to this crap.)

In a 2001 article, Dr. Richard P. Fitzgibbons, a medical doctor with the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), pointed out that young boys (who are more susceptible to GID than girls) do not act like normal girls the same age, but imitate adult women. (Could it be there is no father to act as role model, so the kids start imitating "mom"?) This, he says, indicates an inordinate aversion to their own sex, rather than a genuine identification with girlhood.

"These troubled children reject certain types of play and clothing precisely because it is associated with their own gender, and they adopt activities because they are associated in their mind with the opposite sex," he wrote.

The solution, he says, is helping children appreciate their own gender. "Children need to feel good about their gender identity," Fitzgibbons said. "He needs to feel good about being a boy and becoming a man." (Did all this crap start about the time feminazis began whining about the "insensitivity" of men? Did the downplaying of manly traits such as stoicism, physical courage and a sense of responsibility leave a void felt by young boys? Hell, I know I'd rather be John Wayne than PeeWee Herman any day of the week!)

Fitzgibbons pointed to studies that showed GID can be fully resolved with early therapy aimed at directing the child to appreciate his gender. (Give him G.I. Joe action figures, let him play with toy guns, learn that Bambi actually tastes good with mashed potatoes. Try that sort of thing.)

"Given the positive results of early intervention, the profound unhappiness of these children during elementary school, and the massive problems which accompany same-sex attraction in adolescence, parents should do everything possible to help their child resolve even minor gender identity problems," he wrote. (No shit! Good going Doc, you must have gotten your money's worth of education at college, unlike many of your colleagues.)

(To read Dr. Fitzgibbons' article in full on NARTH's website: http://www.narth.com/docs/fitz.html)

A close member of The War Department's family has opined at times about "manly" things. She feels the Alamo was stupid, "Moby Dick" is incomprehensible, when I described the events the movie "300" was based on I got a blank stare. She's definitely a product of her time and I'd bet most guys her age (early 30's) would feel the same.

This is where the feminization of our youth has led. Men are no longer men in the traditional sense. They now have to be "sensitive" and "in touch with their feelings". Boys can't be boys, they have to be girls with dicks. Bullshit!

No wonder kids like the one in this story are confused. Not only are they confused, their parents fall right in line with their dysfunctional thinking. I notice there's no mention of a father in the kid's life, five gets you ten he was given the heave-ho by "mom" some time ago. After all, everyone "knows" you don't need a father in children's lives these days.

But that's a subject for another post.

Deadline Soon to Oppose Obama Overturning Embryonic Stem Cell Funding Limits

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
May 20, 2009

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- For the millions of Americans who oppose President Barack Obama's decision to overturn the limits on forcing taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research, the deadline to respond is coming soon. The public comment period on the decision expires next Tuesday, May 26.

In March, Obama signed an executive order overturning the limits President Bush put in place prohibiting taxpayer financing of new embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of human life.

Then, in April, the National Institutes of Health released the proposed guidelines that implement Obama's decision.

They describe the conditions and informed consent procedures that would have been required during the derivation of human embryonic stem cells for research using these cells to be funded by the NIH.

The guidelines also contain a long list of informed consent procedures and make it so parents know and agree to how the human embryos will be killed and used in scientific experiments. They only apply to research involving federal funds and do not affect research involving state funds or private dollars.

The proposal gave the public one month to comment, although pro-life groups expect the guidelines to be approved and the Obama administration is expected to release the final set of rules in July.

Still, pro-life groups are urging public comment and say there are numerous problems with the guidelines that go beyond forcing taxpayers to fund the destruction of human life for dubious research.

The guidelines also divert funds away from promising adult stem cell research that is treating people now who have one of over 100 diseases or conditions.

They create a financial incentive for the creation of more human embryos to be destroyed to obtain their embryonic stem cells.

The guidelines also do not require any separation between an in-vitro fertilization doctor and an embryonic stem cell researcher. The guidelines say they “should” be separate, but only when practical. As a result, the Obama guidelines allow any IVF doctor to create more human embryos than are needed for fertility purposes in order to generate more so-called “leftover” embryos for embryonic stem cell research using taxpayer funds.

Meanwhile, pro-life groups like the National Right to Life Committee tell LifeNews.com that the proposed guidelines open the door to other bioethics problems.

The Obama administration, through the NIH guidelines, is not allowing creation of human embryos for the specific purpose of destroying them for research, which is prohibited under a current federal law known as the Dickey amendment.

However, Obama is thought to be very likely to sign a bill sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette that would overturn that law and allow what pro-life groups call "fetal farming" -- the specific use of human cloning to create human embryos destined to be destroyed in scientific research.

NRLC worries Congressional backers of the bill will claim they are merely codifying the NIH guidelines, which would not be the case.

ACTION: The NIH encourages public comments about the guidelines to be entered on-line at: http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/stem_cells/add.htm

Comments may also be submitted in writing to NIH Stem Cell Guidelines, MSC 7997, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892-7997, but they must be received by May 26.

Random personal thoughts...

1) B.O. managed to pull off a coup on Sunday at Notre Dame. He sold the majority of his audience on his, "why can't we all just get along" styled speech. In doing so he continues to widen the divide in the Catholic Church between those who adhere to Rome's leadership and those who would set up a de facto National Roman Catholic Church.

This isn't limited to just Catholics either, he'll prove to be truly ecumenical in his preaching of the secularist gospels. Stand by, the persecutions will start soon enough when the anti-religious secularists figure they've enough "tame" Christians to prove there isn't any problem with the decidedly unChristian laws that will be passed.

2) Now we're going to have government mandated gas mileage requirements for all automobiles by 2016. It'll save gas, in the long run the technology (if it even exists!) will allow us to save a butt ton of money and we'll be less dependent on oil. It also sucks on toast.

I don't WANT the government to mandate what the hell my mileage will be. If I want to buy a gas guzzler of a muscle car to indulge my midlife crisis I should be able to do it! This line of thinking also applies to trans fats, seat belts (which I DO believe in!), cigarette smoking (with one exception I think all smokers are D-U-M-B), and anything else that is "for my own good".

SCREW THAT!! I'm a grownup and I don't need the nanny state in the person of B.O. to intefere. Period.

3) Lately the Pope is managing to piss a lot of people off (condoms in Africa, peace in the Middle East, to name just two areas), IMHO he must be doing something right. If Jesus came back to speak to us I've no doubt He'd be pissing folks off also.

R.I.P.

The following military personnel were killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan during the period of Apr. 26-May 3. Please spare a moment to pray for them and their families.

Sgt. James R. McIlvaine, 26, MD
Petty Officer 2nd Class Tyler J. Trahan, 22, MA
Staff Sgt. Mark A. Wojciechowski, 25, OH
Spc. Jeremiah P. McCleery, 24, CA
Spc. Jake R. Velloza, 22, CA
Lance Sgt. Tobie Fasfous, 29, Wales
Spec. Ryan C. King, 22, GA
Sgt. James D. Pirtle, 21, CO
Staff Sgt. William D. Vile, 27, PA

May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

"Harvey Milk Day"???

Found this at the California Catholic, via Pewsitter.

“In-your-face, anything-goes, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination”

California Senate approves ‘Harvey Milk Day,’ would require public schools to honor homosexual-rights icon

The California Senate yesterday approved a bill designating May 22 as an unpaid state holiday to honor Harvey Milk, the homosexual rights activist who was assassinated in 1978 while serving as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. May 22 is Milk’s birthday.

The measure, which needed 21 votes to pass, was approved by a margin of 24 to 14 on Thursday morning. All 23 Democrats in the Senate voted yes, along with a single Republican, Sen. Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria. With the exception of Maldonado, all other Republican senators voted against the bill.

The measure, SB 572, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who put forward an identical measure last year while serving in the state Assembly. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the previous measure, saying celebrations of Milk’s birthday were more appropriate “at the local level.”

SB 572 would require the governor to “proclaim May 22 of each year as Harvey Milk Day, and would designate that date as having special significance in public schools and educational institutions and would encourage those entities to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on that date.”

Pro-family groups were swift to react to the bill’s passage. "SB 572 could mean homosexual-bisexual-transsexual pride parades in public schools every May 22," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a non-profit, non-partisan organization representing children and families. "SB 572 pressures elementary, junior high and high schools to 'conduct suitable commemorative exercises' in support of the radical sexual agenda of Harvey Milk. Where are the boundaries? Where are the definitions? This in-your-face, anything-goes, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination is definitely not what parents want for their children."

In a press release issued shortly after the Senate’s vote, SaveCalifornia.com said it “is very concerned that the California State Senate has passed SB 572 to institute ‘Harvey Milk Day’ -- essentially ‘Gay Day’ -- in every California public school, affecting children as young as five years old, with no parental consent required.”

According to SaveCalifornia.com, a statewide poll by Survey USA in early March found that 69 percent of Californians opposed the designation of Harvey Milk’s birthday as a statewide day of special significance. "Sadly, the California Legislature seems hell-bent on promoting the homosexual lifestyle as a role model for children," said Thomasson. "It's absurd -- the government school system teaches children not to smoke or use drugs, yet SB 572 would teach children as young as kindergarten that homosexuality is good and healthy and maybe even for them. That's just not true. Homosexual and bisexual behavior causes up to 82 percent of all HIV transmissions in California."

The bill now goes to the State Assembly, where it is expected to win approval easily. The big question is whether Gov. Schwarzenegger will again veto the bill, as he did last year. Homosexual activists this year have enlisted the support of actor Sean Penn, who on Feb. 22 won an Academy Award for portraying Milk in the recent motion picture of the same name. Penn attended a March 3 press conference in San Francisco held to promote the bill.

“I trust Governor Schwarzenegger is certainly a reasonable man,” Penn said at the press conference. “He understands passing on prejudice is poisonous to future generations. I believe Governor Schwarzenegger will sign and support this bill. I would never assume such ignorance of the governor that he would not want to revise his opinion.”

In 1977, Milk became the first openly homosexual man elected to an important political office in the U.S. when he won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Fellow Supervisor Dan White assassinated Milk and Mayor George Moscone the following year.

The hell of it is, Milk did absolutely nothing worthy of note as a politician. Whoops, I'll take that back. He was responsible for proposing the nation's first pooper-scooper law. Reserve the man a space on Mt. Rushmore for that alone.

As goes California, so goes the nation, soon there will be similar initiatives appearing in other state legislatures. Don't look for private education to be the answer to this either, you can bet that in the interests of appearing "tolerant" and "accepting" the private schools will fall right in line with this crap. Thus our children will be brought up to idolize queers.

If you think thats an exaggeration, here's a personal story for ya. The War Department is a product of our public school system here in Texas. She confided to me that thanks to the "multicultural" approach to her education she often wished she'd been born black or Hispanic.

Now I know there are a fair amount of folk who will scream out that minority children often used to harbor the same fantasies vis-a-vis being white. Thats not the point. If we're all truly equal then we're all equally comfortable with being who we are.

So once they start honoring this fudgepacker and others like him you can just bet there will be a fair amount of kids wishing they had an appetite for homosexual activities.

If you believe thats the unreasonable prejudices of a Neanderthal then fine. Time will definetly tell.

God help us all.

You. Must. Be. Kidding.

Honest to God, being in a universe where you couldn't make this shit up is too much sometimes.

U.S. Will Pay $2.6 Million to Train Chinese Prostitutes to Drink Responsibly on the Job

It's stories like this that make ME want to start drinking again!

Give him a fair trial and hang him!!

DENVER (AP) - A Colorado-based veterans group has voted to disband after members accused its founder of fabricating an identity as a former Marine captain who served three tours in Iraq and was at the Pentagon on 9/11. (Makes sense, you don't get good fruit from a poisoned tree.)

Richard Glen Strandlof, who used the name Rick Duncan, founded the Colorado Veterans Alliance about two years ago. There is no record of someone with either name serving in the Marines, said Maj. Carl Redding, a Marine Corps spokesman. (What a dope this guy must be! Five minutes time on the internet would suffice to pull the string, unravelling the pack of lies.)

Strandlof, 32, was in police custody Friday in Denver on $1,000 bond after his arrest Tuesday on an outstanding traffic warrant. He declined an Associated Press request for an interview. (DUH!!)

His actions "permanently damaged the reputation of Colorado Veterans Alliance to the point that no future efforts can go forward," alliance spokesman Dan Warvi said. (Too bad for the bona fide veterans there.)

Strandlof was quoted as Duncan—a wounded veteran and advocate—by numerous news organizations, including The AP, and was featured in a commercial sponsored by a veterans' group on behalf of Sen. Mark Udall, a Democrat from Colorado.

He also brought attention to the plight of homeless veterans in Colorado Springs.

Despite using a fake identity, Strandlof "was responsible for good things happening for the homeless veterans," Colorado Springs city council member Jerry Heimlicher said. (Hey Jerry don't try putting lipstick on this pig, it'll stay a pig.)

The accusations against Strandlof were first reported by The Gazette.

Strandlof's grandfather, Richard Kenneth Strandlof of Dayton, Mont., said his grandson lived with them in Montana as a teenager. He said Strandlof was a "child prodigy" who would use the Internet to create aliases and fake identities. (Didn't anyone see this coming? "Make-believe" is okay but there are limits to everything.)

"It was amazing the stuff he would come up with—that he had a Ph.D. from Europe," the elder Strandlof said. "And people would believe him!" (There's one born every minute....)

A “dragon lady in heels”...

Victor Davis Hanson's parody of President Palin’s First 100 Days,
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson051509.html

Well worth reading.

Pelosi observation...

Madame Speaker seems to be having difficulty with her memory of various meetings agreeing with official records of the same.

I recall hearing that a habitual liar needs an excellent memory if they hope to never get caught.

Now I wonder why that thought came to mind?

NOW what in hell is going on??

Someone cue me in.

I'm angry all the time, yell at everyone except my kids. Walking around with a kingsized chip on my shoulder.

No reason for it, life is just as good as it always is. In some ways, better.

So if you can spare a few prayers.....

Thanks.

I heard an additional seven cents a can....

Tell me again how 95% of Americans won't see a tax increase to fund B.O.'s schemes. Then explain this gem; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html

This is just the beginning and the jerk hasn't been in office for six months yet.

We are so screwed.

Catholic/Christian self-intimidation.

I took this from The Catholic Review. Archbishop O'Brien heads up the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Although he specifically addresses Catholics, the mindset spoken of can be found across the denominational board.

Christians as a whole need to start speaking up, even when it's politically incorrect, especially on abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and euthanasia. Other topics such as capital punishment, the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars, Gitmo and it's "torture" are already covered by the chorus of the politically correct within our midst.

Intimidated?

Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien
The Catholic Review

The seeds were probably sown centuries ago in a hostile atmosphere for Catholics in the New World. In 1633, as the earliest colonists were about to set sail for “Mary Land”, Cecil Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, instructed “his said Governor and Commissioners” that while sailing and upon arrival at their destination “they instruct all the Roman Catholics to be silent on all occasions of discourse concerning matters of religion...”

Had the intimidation begun?

From those days and even to the present, many Catholics have too often felt that we have still to prove ourselves as truly American. Nothing has seemed capable of persuading the Protestant majority that Catholicism could be compatible with American democracy. It has been said that Catholics’ participation in World Wars I and II brought Catholicism a new acceptance. But the rejection of Al Smith, the Democratic U.S. presidential candidate in 1928 and the first Roman Catholic to run for President, largely on religious grounds, and the compromise of faith that John F. Kennedy felt it necessary to make in becoming the first Catholic president, gave evidence of a viral anti-Catholicism, a low-grade prejudice the famed American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., once called “the deepest bias in the history of the American people.”

I think that a good case can be made that the subtle effect of such bias has often been to intimidate us Catholics. And now and then the subtle intimidation seems to work.

Is that why Georgetown University, founded as a Catholic institution, recently yielded to the White House and removed a crucifix and other religious symbols from behind the stage where the President spoke during a recent visit there?

Was it a fear of being “too Catholic” and a hankering to be “mainstream America” that prompted the University of Notre Dame’s invitation to our President not only to give this year’s Commencement address but also be awarded an honorary doctorate from the University?

The response of many Catholics to the Notre Dame case is not a slight on the Presidency or an attack on our President, nor should it be seen as such. It is about a flagship Catholic institution singling out for unique honor an undoubtedly dedicated and popular figure who unfortunately happens to be a most powerful leader in supporting abortion and threatening the conscience rights of medical professionals who refuse to cooperate in the killing of innocent human lives.

Bishop John M. D’Arcy of Forth Worth-South Bend, Indiana, spoke out swiftly and forcefully against the University’s decision in announcing his decision not to attend the commencement. He said his choice was consistent with his responsibility as a bishop to “teach the Catholic faith in season and out of season,” adding that a bishop “teaches not only by his words, but by his actions.”

I applaud Bishop D’Arcy for his stance and also for his words urging “all Catholics and others of good will” to avoid “unseemly demonstrations” on a day that belongs to Notre Dame’s graduates and their families.

The teaching responsibility that Bishop D’Arcy cites was at the heart of the 2004 guiding statement of the U.S. Bishops, “Catholics in Political Life,” which states: “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions” should not honor those “who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” with awards, honors, or “platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

I do not think Notre Dame will withdraw its invitation. And I am not sure what good would be accomplished if they did, beyond fueling the prejudices of conscious or unconscious anti-Catholics. The damage has already been done.

The fact is that this debacle need not and should not have happened. It is unknown at present, what really prompted Notre Dame’s invitation – and then its awkward attempt to have the staunchly pro-life former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Mary Ann Glendon somehow justify that invitation in a five minute acceptance speech for her reception of the University’s highest honor, the Laetare Medal. Whatever the rationale, it cannot undo the confusion it has caused among Catholics who rightly look to their bishops and to the leaders of major Catholic institutions for moral guidance and for a consistent application of Church teaching. Hopefully, when it’s all over, the administration of Notre Dame will reassess that decision, be willing to bear the traditional and inevitable burden of being solidly Catholic and fully return to the Catholic fold.

But let’s not fool ourselves into believing that there are not a good number of our fellow citizens – and some of them intimidated Catholics – who would be modern-day Lord Baltimores and wish us to be “silent on all occasions” in our secularist culture when our most fundamental beliefs are at stake.

I recall a "prolife chain" I was involved in a year or so ago. A bunch of us from various churches met in a parking lot, said a quick prayer and stationed ourselves along a main road with our signs.

Catholics normally make the Sign of The Cross before and after saying our prayers. Although there were a few other easily recognized Catholics (wearing a Knights of Columbus ball cap gives them away every time) I was the only one who initially did that at the prayer start. At the finish a couple of the cap wearers hesitantly followed suit.

We need to stop trying to fit in, if we're truly followers of Christ we have to be prepared to act oddly in accordance with our beliefs. That can be said for Christians as a whole, not just Catholics.

The battle lines are fast forming in plain sight of everyone, it's time to pick a side and let the world know which one it is. Being lukewarm about it will only get us spewed out of God's mouth.

R.I.P.

The following military personnel were killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan during the period of Apr. 19-25. Please spare a moment to pray for them and their families.

Staff Sgt. Leroy O. Webster 28 SD
Command Sgt. Maj. Benjamin Moore Jr. 43 GA
Cpl. Brad A. Davis 21 OH
Cpl. William C. Comstock 21 AR
Maj. Michelle Mendes 30 Canada

May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Origins of the Civil War...

Lord, will the Civil War ever be put to rest? For the third time in two weeks I've come across a blog entry where the comments degenerate into trying to figure out who was to blame for it.

My take is the whole thing was rooted in slavery. Period. Call it "state's rights" if you want but those "rights" were about owning human beings. Nothing else. Gussy up this pig anyway you can, it'll still be a pig.

For justification of my opinion I give this portion of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Article 4, Section 3, subsection 3;

3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

To repeat the pertinent part, "...In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government;..."

So if the whole damned thing wasn't about slavery then what in hell was it about?

Regardless of that, when do we stop fighting the damned thing?

Time to stand up and be counted.

I mentioned sometime ago how the level of animosity over abortion was being ratcheted up BY BOTH SIDES. Here's some proof of it, http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=33514&wf=rsscol It's a quick story detailing how Alan Keyes has been arrested for performing a protest against the Obama invitation to speak at Notre Dame. Seems Dr. Keyes went on the campus itself, pushing a baby carriage with a blood spattered doll inside. He and over twenty others are now sharing a cell.

I've not decided how much to agree/disagree with the tactic. In the long run it won't matter. The boundaries between prolifers and abortion supporters are hardening and becoming more sharply defined. We'll see more incidents like this, answered from the proaborts in equally strong terms. Sitting on the fence is less an option.

So we'd better be ready to up the ante on our prayer vigils, protests, etc. Right now they're tame to say the least. The last vigil I attended was just a group of folk outside an abortion mill, holding signs, singing hymns and praying. We were still under constant police surveillance. Seems the guy who runs the slaughterhouse doesn't like us. Boo frigging hoo. He's even had the EXACT boundary of his property marked with chalk on the sidewalk, if anyone so much as unconsciously rests a heel over that line BANG!! the cops are called for a formal complaint.

Contrast that with the Petland protest I saw this morning down in the city of Plano, A protest similar to this one. The folks I saw were protesting a "puppy mill"!! They were dressed in mourning veils, had signs that put ours to shame and REALLY stood out! No, I'm not kidding about those veils either. Wonder if maybe prolifers should start wearing some, maybe it would get the point across more strongly.

It says something when so many folk get worked up over puppies but you won't see near that many protesting the murder of babies. That apathy will be shaken in the near future and I feel a "kill the messenger" mentality will take hold. This will be encouraged by our proabort President and Congress.

Soon the tactics of an Alan Keyes won't be the exception, they'll be the norm. Then the messenger starts getting his ass kicked.

But the alternative is to be a "good little Christian" who would never/ever sit in judgement of anyone. Kind of a lukewarm sort. For the response of God to that, read the Biblical quote at the top of my blog.

'Nuff said....

MightyMom passed this on to me. Pretty much says it all.

I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes, and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay check, I work on a rig site for a Fort McMurray construction project. At any time I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. HOWEVER, what I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Understand - I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass, drink beer and smoke dope. Could you imagine how much money this country would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? If you agree, please pass this along, or simply delete if you don't. Hope you will pass it along though, because something has to change in this country.

Fr. Corapi on the Notre Dame scandal.

Thought crime?

This was found via ProLife Blogs and it is bizarre. If I read it correctly, all freedom of expression goes out the window in order not to offend anyone.

Boy Scouts Sued for Hypothetical Offense

By The CATO Institute , Individual Liberty, Free Markets, Peace - May 05, 2009

By Ilya Shapiro

The City of San Diego leases portions of Balboa Park and Fiesta Island to the San Diego Boy Scouts, which use the land to operate a camp and aquatic center. The Boy Scouts use the leased areas for their own events but otherwise keep them open to the general public — and have spent millions of dollars to improve and maintain facilities on the properties, eliminating the need for taxpayer funding. While the Boy Scouts’ membership policies exclude homosexuals and agnostics, the Scouts have not erected any religious symbols and do not discriminate in any way in administering the leased parklands.

Nevertheless, a lesbian couple with a son and an agnostic couple with a daughter challenged the leases under the Establishment Clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions. Although none of the plaintiffs has ever tried to use the parklands or otherwise had any contact with the Boy Scouts, the Ninth Circuit found they had standing to proceed with their lawsuit because they were offended at the idea of having to contact Boy Scout representatives to gain access to the facilities. The court denied en banc review over a scathing dissent by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain.

The Boy Scouts have asked the Supreme Court to review the case — whose outcome conflicts with other federal courts of appeal — and Cato joined the Individual Rights Foundation in filing a brief supporting that petition. Cato’s brief argues that the Ninth Circuit’s decision dangerously confers standing on anybody wishing to challenge the internal policies of expressive associations having any business with local government; chills public/private partnerships of all kinds for reasons disconnected from the beneficial services civic organizations provide the public; and generally represents a radical extension of standing jurisprudence — opening the courthouse doors to anyone claiming to be subjectively offended by any action and manufacturing litigation out of political debates.

The Supreme Court is likely to decide whether to take up the case of Boys Scouts of America v. Barnes-Wallace before the start of the next term this fall.

USCCB call to action on stem cell research

WASHINGTON, May 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) launched a new "Oppose Destructive Stem Cell Research" campaign today, which urges citizens to contact Congress and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to oppose embryonic stem cell research and support ethical cures and treatments "we can all live with." The campaign is facilitated by the USCCB's partner organization, the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment.

Following President Obama's March 9 executive order, the NIH proposed guidelines for federally funded research that will require destroying live human embryos for their stem cells. The draft guidelines are open for public comment through May 26.

The campaign homepage, http://www.usccb.org/stemcellcampaign, summarizes why the proposed guidelines are unacceptable, provides links to USCCB resources (including the bishops' statement "On Embryonic Stem Cell Research" and multi-media resources and ads), and encourages web users to "Contact Congress & NIH Now" through an e-mail interface. Several resources are available in both English and Spanish.

The campaign site explains that the NIH guidelines "would-for the first time-use taxpayer funds to encourage the killing of embryonic human beings for their stem cells." It continues, "Embryonic stem cell research treats innocent human beings as mere sources of body parts, as commodities for our use."

The webpage features a video of Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, critiquing the draft guidelines.

"The Catholic bishops of the United States will be writing to Congress and the Administration about the need to restore and maintain barriers against the mistreatment of human life in the name of science, and we urge other concerned citizens to do the same," Cardinal Rigali said.

Catholics and other citizens are urged to contact both NIH and Congress because members of Congress and the Administration have expressed interest in pursuing an even broader policy. "They want to obtain stem cells by destroying human embryos specially generated for research through in vitro fertilization (IVF) or cloning procedures - a 'create to kill' policy," the campaign page explains.

Those who want to call for stem cell research and cures "we can all live with" may speak out by visiting http://www.usccb.org/stemcellcampaign and clicking on "Contact Congress & NIH Now."

B.O. keeps a promise...

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Before he took over the White House, President Barack Obama made it clear he would cut abstinence funding. He has followed through as his new budget eliminates all federal funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with sexual education. ( I don't get it. Abstinence has a zero failure rate. The fact that it's so hard to practice has a lot more to do with cultural & peer pressures than physical laws. Condoms and everything elso preached under the heading of "sexual education" fail. Their design flaws allow them to fail. Thats assuming horny teens and adults even bother with trying to prevent conception. A woman keeping her skirt on and her legs closed won't get pregnant. Hell, it may even cause the rutting boyfriend to respect her a bit more.

The budget eliminates funding for CBAE (Community Based Abstinence Education) and Title V Abstinence Education Program.

In Obama's FY 2010 Proposed Budget, the president calls for at least $164 million in funding for contraceptive-only education. The money includes competitive grants, research, evaluation and authorization for $50 million in new mandatory condom grants to states, tribes and territories.

Leslee Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, told LifeNews.com that Obama's decision "is a Hollywood-failed old approach that only increases teen pregnancy and damages America's greatest resource, our children." (Amen. Tell them contraceptives work and remove all thought of risk from their minds and they'll screw like rabbits. The more they screw, the greater the chance they discover the failure rate of contraceptives. But thats where abortion comes in I guess, no one wants their daughter "punished" for her actions. Noted.)

"I believe there will be a political backlash for those who oppose these life saving abstinence programs. The enemies of sexual integrity programs will feel the heat from the army of youth who have seen the light through these programs as they approach voting age," she added.

Unruh says abstinence education supporters will continue fighting for funding and will gather in strategic meetings that will take place in June.

"We have clear goals and sound strategies," Unruh says. "Defeat? We don't know the meaning of the word."

Meanwhile, the National Abstinence Education Association said Obama's anti-abstinence budget “disregards the growing body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of abstinence education,” including research showing “a 50% decrease in sexual onset among teens that are enrolled in abstinence programs.”

“At a time when teens are subjected to an increasingly sexualized culture, it is essential that common-sense legislators from both sides of the aisle reject this extreme attempt to de-fund the only approach that removes all risk,” said NAEA Executive Director Valerie Huber. (Maybe if we as a culture started really pushing the idea of abstinence it might gain greater traction in the minds of the young and impressionable.)

On the other hand, Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat who backs abortion, told Congressional Quarterly she is pleased with Obama's decision to eliminate abstinence funding. ("Backs abortion", figures. We're back to the mindset of insuring no "punishment" for promiscuity.)

“Finally we have a president who gets it,” she said. (Unfortunately.)

The abstinence funding included $110 million per year in discretionary spending and $50 million per year in mandatory spending often referred to as Title V funding.

This is the second time Obama has called for less abstinence funding. In the omnibus spending bill Obama signed earlier this year, abstinence programs received $95 million, a substantial reduction from the $151 million they previously received.