The loss by McCain and the GOP 2010 midterm victories were a message to the GOP and the 2012 election is a re-statement of that same message: we will vote for genuine conservative candidates and support them materially, but we will no longer support candidates who struggle to distinguish themselves from the ones they are running against. They will not hold their nose and vote for the GOP moderate. They’re just not going to do it. But, as the 2012 House turnout shows, they will still vote for the GOP conservative.
In a DailyMail article we read: ‘Virginia is neck and neck as well,’ [Jim] Messina said. ‘We continue to feel very good about our chances to carry it there..in Northern Virginia Romney’s going to have defend his wanting employers to decide whether you get contraception services for you or your wife or your daughters and …
Is it true that women only earn 77 percent for each dollar earned annually by men and 82 percent of each dollar earned weekly?
Is it true that women only earn 77 percent for each dollar earned annually by men and 82 percent of each dollar earned weekly? That’s what you hear over and over and over and over and over again. It showed up in the presidential debate. I saw it in recent comments on an article. It …
My Response to Wisconsin-La Crosse Professor Bradley Butterfield’s Column Promoting Abortion in the Name of ‘Women’s Rights’ with Overpopulation the Real Target
On October 4th, UW-L English professor Bradley Butterfield had his guest view defending abortion in the name of ‘Women’s Rights’ and it was clear to me that this was really just a cover for his real agenda, which is population control. I don’t know him well enough to know if he is even aware of …
The debate revealed nothing about Obama that attentive people have seen in him for the last four years: He is an ’empty suit.’ He is an ’empty chair.’ The debate only revealed something about Romney, but it only uncovered and crystallized anti-Obama sentiment that had been lying quietly beneath the surface for 2-4 years.
Romney in a landslide.
We are all bullies now: Jennifer Livingston, meet Kenneth Krause, Liberal, Atheist, Secular Humanist
When one person calls another person fat, that is bullying. When the government calls two thirds of America’s citizenry fat, we call that being ‘socially concerned.’ Who elected this government? We the people. If Kenneth Krause is a bully, so is the government, and so are all the people who told the government it was ‘ok’ to involve itself in every area of our lives. We are all bullies now.
In the decades leading up to one of the most horrific chapters in human history, the leading lights of the day openly discussed bringing about those horrors. Eugenics was posited as the rational position of all intelligent, well-meaning individuals. In journals, newspapers, academic conferences, public health offices and elsewhere, they talked about sterilizing people with or without their consent, segregating them from society, or even exterminating them. And that was in America.
The recent turn of events in the Middle East has me thinking that we may be seeing the Obama term complete it’s mimicry of Carter’s presidency. The Iranian hostage crisis fleshed out the numerous ways in which Carter was deficient. It was all part of a package, you see; the floundering economy, the diminished standing …
As I sit here typing this, my hands wreak of gasoline and there is enough on my shorts that, if a wayward spark happened by, could make me seriously uncomfortable, to say the least. In the meantime, we must make mention of the serious harm that has just been done to the earth: a pint …
I posted an essay referring to this essay by Abraham Lincoln so I thought I may as well post the whole thing somewhere. OPPOSITION TO MOB-RULE ADDRESS BEFORE THE YOUNG MEN’ S LYCEUM OF SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS. January 27, 1837. As a subject for the remarks of the evening, “The Perpetuation of our Political Institutions “is …
Get this on your E-reader using this link and coupon for 100% off: ZC29N I must at the outset admit the debt owed to GK Chesterton, for it was on the third reading of his “Eugenics and Other Evils” that his comments about ‘the anarchy from above’ finally made sense. They made sense because they …
The culture of death is rarely honest about its beliefs and values. All the more reason for those of us in the pro-life community to keep our eye on the ball. If we got rid of abortion on demand, but erected the apparatus that the elites are trying to build, I assure you, the only thing that will change is the group of people that falls under their scrutiny. Probably the old, most certainly the disabled. But also targeted: those who smoke, who drink, who eat sugar, or trans fat, or engage in ‘unhealthy lifestyles.’ I would say that tyranny is right around the corner, but that last sentence should give us the real truth: it is inside the door, and sitting at our couches… and trying to make itself at home, at our own invitation.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Or, What is the proper response to killing newborn children because they are a burden to a family… or society?
authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue that the same arguments that justify abortion of the fetus on demand likewise apply to the newly born. Here is the abstract:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.