The Super Bowl

I hesitate to throw politics into such a fantastic event as the Super Bowl, but for reasons that will become clear in a moment, I'm going to do it. You may have heard about this already, but at some point during the game there will be an ad by Florida Gators quarterback (Heisman Trophy winner and all around stud) Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. The ad is funded by Focus on the Family, and will reportedly be a simple message, talking about how Pam was told years ago while a missionary outside the U.S. that her baby would die, so she should have an abortion. She chose not to, and, well, her choice obviously turned out very, very well.

The ad itself has been kept secret, so we don't know exactly what it will be, nor when it will run, but it ignited a firestorm of criticism from the ***cough cough*** tolerant Left. In fact, groups like Planned Parenthood were so offended by Pam Tebow's choice of giving her baby a chance to live that they will be airing their own ads that supposedly honor women and families by encouraging them to have abortions. Or something like that.

After these came out, we found out that there will actually be at least one additional ad by the Tebows, though they were all taped over a month ago, so it's not a 'response' but was planned all along. Apparently, FotF is going all out on this, the biggest television stage in the world.

Here's the point: the Tebows are coming forward with a simple message of LIFE. The oh-so-tolerant Left is throwing a supremely nasty hissy fit and once again coming down on the side of death. The reality is that when these two messages are put side by side, I think it'll be pretty evident which one wins the day.

The bottom line is well stated by pro-choice WaPo columnist Sally Jenkins:

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t. ...

His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. “Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Trouble is, you can’t focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it — and that is the genius of Tebow’s ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn’t just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers — who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.

And that's why this ad is acceptable. This is not about some abstract choice, it's about heart-wrenching choices of people. The Left's outrage at the Tebow ad(s) proves only that when PP and the tolerant Left says they're pro-choice, they really mean they're pro-abortion. They only approve of the ability to choose if you choose what they want you to. The reality is that though the Left says pretty things, their actions are full of ugliness, and simply shining the light on that ugliness makes them viciously angry. The Left adheres to a bankrupt philosophy that incubates a culture of death, and this is one more example that unequivocally underlines the point.

On a related note, the One is planning a big Super Bowl party at the White House. It's a 'bipartisan' party that includes a single Republican. Ignore the fact that that Republican was the only one to vote in favor of DemCare back when it passed the House. Purely a coincidence. Because the Left is the tolerant bunch, you know.

********************************

But now to the game itself. Since the Chiefs were amazingly suck-tastic this year, I decided to choose a second favorite team to follow. For a few different reasons, I selected the Indianapolis Colts. Needless to say, my mood has been considerably better since that decision!

From what I've read and seen, it appears that this could be a really fun Super Bowl. Most people seem to like both teams. It's hard not to appreciate the road taken by the Saints and Drew Brees (though I still hold a slight grudge against him for leading Purdue to a victory over KSU in the Alamo Bowl all those years ago), and it's impossible not to respect Manning's leadership and accomplishments. Both offenses are high-powered, and it seems the defenses will be key - whichever D slows down the opposing offense the best will probably create a win. One key factor is the fact that the Colts have been here before, and are more used to playing in big games. If the hoopla and hype has penetrated the Saints' inexperienced enthusiasm, they could have problems with nerves and jitters, and letting the Colts jump out front early could be the kiss of death. Of course, combined with the right mental toughness, sometimes inexperience simply grants you enough ignorance to miss the fact that you should be the second place team. Which will it be? Dunno...that's why they play the games!

On a side note - I hope the (non-Tebow) commercials are funny. They've been pretty lame for the last couple years, a pale shadow of the side-splitters from several years ago.

Anyway, this should be a battle of two outstanding quarterbacks, two excellent offenses, and two aggressive defenses. It should be a fun event, and I'm looking forward to it! My completely unqualified prediction:

Colts win in a shoot-out, 37-34.

Enjoy!


***UPDATE***
Hm. The only Tim Tebow ad I saw was this one, and it certainly wasn't what was advertised as the big controversial one. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention when it aired...it was that kind of night.

Anyway, to the game...

Saints win, 31-17!!!

There were about three critical plays on which the Colts just didn't execute, and in a game of two excellent teams, that's all it takes. Give the Saints full credit for ingenuity - it's an extraordinary thing to throw off someone as talented and professional as Manning.

And now, the long darkness of the off-season sets in...

;)


***UPDATE #2***
Upon further reflection, I should have known better than to predict a Colts win, what with all the talk of Manning being the greatest QB in NFL history. Anytime in recent memory that I can recall there being a lot of talk about 'the greatest _________ ever', the object of said greatness loses. Just ask the 2003 Oklahoma Sooners, the 2005 USC Trojans, or the 2007 New England Patriots how that worked out for them. Looks like the Sports Illustrated cover curse might have a more subtle companion that sports teams/figures need to worry about...


***UPDATE #3***
Ah-hah! This is why the Colts lost:

President Barack Obama said Sunday that the Indianapolis Colts "have to be favored" in the Super Bowl, even though he has a "soft spot" for the New Orleans Saints.

Obama's Super Bowl prediction was based on his opinion that the Colts have "perhaps the best quarterback in history."

Mystery solved. I really, really hope Obama campaigns hard for Democrats this summer...

Peaceful Pro-Choice Demonstrator Murdered By Radical Right-Wing Nutjob

Oh, wait...excuse me, I have that backwards! It was actually a peaceful pro-life demonstrator who was murdered by a radical Left-wing nutjob:

James Pouillon- Rest in peace.

More-- The activist has been identified: James Pouillon, a long time anti-abortion activist has been shot and killed this morning in front of Owosso High School in Michigan.

He was shot dead in front of terrified teenagers.

A well known pro-Life advocate was shot and killed this morning in Michigan.
Life News reported:

Local officials and state police are confirming that a pro-life advocate was shot and killed outside a high school in this Michigan town. The person, who is described as well-known but whose identity has not been released, was shot multiple times while protesting abortion outside Owosso High School.

Officials say the shooting occurred at 7:30 a.m. local time and most students were inside the school building at the time of the incident.

State police have also confirmed they apprehended a suspect about 8:15 a.m. at the suspect's home in this small community northeast of Lansing...

...Father Frank Pavone, the director of Priests for Life, has commented on the shooting in an email to LifeNews.com.

"We do not know the motive yet. But this is a time to console one
another, and to renew our determination to organize peaceful protests," he said. "It is no time for fear."

Pavone called on abortion advocates to comdemn the shooting.

"And I am waiting to hear the abortion advocates condemn this killing," he said.

Question 1: has any pro-choice organization publicly condemned the killing of this innocent man? Our side soundly condemned the murderer of George Tiller the late-term abortion doctor. Where's the reciprocation?

Question 2: when will the President publicly condemn this killing? He seems to enjoy getting involved in ideologically driven local events...so why not this one?

Ponder amongst yourselves. But not too hard, because you already know the answers.

There's my two cents.

Dems Desperate To Fund Abortion With Your Tax Dollars

How desperate?  Very:

Yesterday afternoon, House Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) proposed an amendment to the House health care overhaul bill to allow for federal funding of elective abortion coverage for those enrolled in the "public option," to mandate that every regional Health Insurance Exchange contain at least one private insurance plan that offers abortion coverage, and to permit taxpayer subsidies of those private insurance plans and others that cover elective abortion.

The Capps amendment passed 30-28, with E&C Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Capps, and 28 other Democrats voting in favor of mandating (and allowing taxpayer funding to be used to subsidize) abortion coverage.

Taxpayer dollars do not currently pay for, or subsidize, insurance plans that cover elective abortion services. This amendment, if the health overhaul bill to which it is attached is passed and signed into law, would alter that policy, using the tax dollars of every American - pro-life or pro-choice - to subsidize abortion coverage (and, by extension, abortion services).

Late last night, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) responded to the Capps amendment's passage by proposing an amendment of his own. Pitts's proposal would have prohibited the federal government from requiring any insurance plan — including the "public option" — to provide coverage for abortion (with the three chief exception of rape, incest, and life of the mother).

E&C passed the Pitts amendment by a 31-27 vote, with Waxman among the "Yea" votes. However, after the votes were in and the amendment passed, Waxman decided he wanted to change his vote, and so brought the amendment back up for "reconsideration" and a re-vote.

The second time around, Waxman voted against the amendment to prevent abortion coverage from being mandated in health insurance plans. He also convinced Blue Dog Democrat Bart Gordon (D-TN) to switch his vote from Yea to Nay, and pulled conflicted Blue Dog Zack Space (D-OH), who had managed to sit out the first round of voting, back into the debate. Space, who voted in favor of the Capps amendment earlier yesterday afternoon, succumbed to pressure from Waxman and cast his vote against the Pitts measure.

The result was a 30-29 defeat of the measure — a reversal of the initial outcome, and the Democratic preservation a health care overhaul bill that not only allows, but mandates, taxpayer-funded abortion coverage and services.

Take your pick of thinks to get angry about here...holding a second vote because the first one didn't turn out the 'right' way? contorting standard process to blatantly serve their agenda? strong-arming just enough people to brute force his way into 'victory'? forcing taxpayers to pay for a procedure they abhor?

If you live in the district of Waxman, Gordon, or Space, I'd suggest you let them know what you think about this foul act of political rape.  If you don't, I suggest you spread the word amongst people you know that this is how the Democrat majority operates, and that this is how desperate they are to accelerate the slaughter of the unborn with your tax dollars.

There's my two cents.

If A Man Can Be Judged By The Company He Keeps...

...what does this say about Barack Obama:

President Obama's top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child "will ultimately develop into a human being" if he or she is properly fed and socialized.
 
"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being," John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions."

This guy's casual disregard for the sanctity of human life is stunning.  Look at some of the other statements this foul individual has written:

"From this point of view, a fetus is only a potential human being [italics in original]," wrote the authors. "Historically, the law has dated most rights and privileges from the moment of birth, and legal scholars generally agree that a fetus is not a 'person' within the meaning of the United States Constitution until it is born and living independent of its mother's body."
 
The same section of the book goes on to argue that abortion spares "unwanted children" from "undesirable consequences."
 
"From the standpoint of the terminated fetus, it makes no difference whether the mother had an induced abortion or a spontaneous abortion," write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. "On the other hand, it subsequently makes a great deal of difference to the child if an abortion is denied, and the mother, contrary to her wishes, is forced to devote her body and life to the production and care of the child. In Sweden, studies were made to determine what eventually happened to children born to mothers whose requests for abortions had been turned down. When compared to a matched group of children from similar backgrounds who had been wanted, more than twice as many as these unwanted youngsters grew up in undesirable circumstances (illegitimate, in broken homes, or in institutions), more than twice as many had records of delinquency, or were deemed unfit for military service, almost twice as many had needed psychiatric care, and nearly five times as many had been on public assistance during their teens.
 
"There seems little doubt that the forced bearing of unwanted children has undesirable consequences not only for the children themselves and their families but for society as well, apart from the problems of overpopulation," wrote the authors.

"The third approach to population control is that of involuntary fertility control," write the Ehrlichs and Holdren. "Several coercive proposals deserve discussion mainly because societies may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means."
 
"Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying" the authors state at the end of the subsection. "As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1970s, we may well find them demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time.  If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted."

Words fail.

There's my two cents.

Planned Parenthood Busted Again

Wow, these are some gutsy girls to keep doing this over and over:

This is the sixth undercover video that this project has revealed where Planned Parenthood has clearly violated the law in order to perform abortions. If it happened at one or two places, it could be a fluke. This is not a fluke. It is clear that Planned Parenthood has a systemic problem throughout the organization, and that they'd rather perform abortions than follow the law.

There's my two cents.

Tiller Clinic Shuts Down

OneNewsNow:

The family of slain abortion provider George Tiller said Tuesday that his Wichita clinic will be "permanently closed," effective immediately.

In a statement released by Tiller's attorneys, his family said it is ceasing operation of Women's Health Care Services Inc. and any involvement by family members in any other similar clinic.

Don't get me wrong...I'm very glad to see Tiller's baby-killing operation close its doors.  He's been slaughtering defenseless babies for years, often with the almost universally-despised partial birth abortion procedure.

What disturbs me is to think about the handful of wackos who will take this as a green light that all they have to do to end abortion is to kill all abortionists, and thus start attacking, killing, and generally unleashing violence in the name of pro-lifers everywhere.  While I share their desired ends, I totally reject their means, and I fear that even a couple more incidents like this -- aside from the obvious moral and legal WRONGNESS of it -- will paint the pro-life movement in such a poor light that all of its significant progress in recent years will be reversed.

There are ways to fight this battle; violence is not it.

There's my two cents.

George Tiller Murdered

I expect this will get a tremendous amount of play in the headlines.

George Tiller, the late-term abortion doctor (nicknamed 'the baby-killer'), was killed in church in Wichita, KS over the weekend.  The suspected shooter, Scott Roeder, was arrested several hours later, apparently trying to drive back to his home in Kansas City.

Thoughts and prayers go out to the family, friends, and congregation that had to witness this horrible act.  For the record, while I abhor Tiller's actions over the past years, this is no way to deal with it.  Murder is murder, and any pro-lifer who engages in murder to protest the murder of unborn babies has some serious mental issues going on.  There is absolutely no excuse nor justification for this, and I hope this guy goes away for a very, very long time.

Now, it's a sad reality that this issue will more than likely become a political one because of the nature of Tiller's high-profile business and his connections with HHS Secretary Sebelius and Barack Obama.  I'll post more details as they come out, but from what I've seen so far, this guy Roeder is apparently a wacko with a criminal record, and is clearly not a sane and stable individual.  He's a one-man nutjob who made himself a murderer.  Sadly, because of his actions we're now going to be bombarded with press saying that the much-derided DHS report saying right-wingers were terrorists was true, that pro-lifers are dangerous, etc.  If you're a pro-lifer, prepare to be insulted, smeared, and attacked because of this one wacko nutjob.

If I may offer a suggestion: don't accept the premise.  These are not the actions of a true pro-lifer, nor are they condoned by the Christian Bible, and they are not indicative of the entire pro-life movement nor the Christian church.  We need to be prepared to take these attacks and deflect them with truth and grace.

It's coming.

There's my two cents.

Americans Want More Life And Less Government

Wow:

According to a new FOX News Poll Americans want less government and less spending.

Then they probably won't like this:

Obama will quadruple the deficit this year.
Obama's budget Obama's budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, and adds more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined.

In other polling news... Gallup said that a new poll, conducted May 7 to 10, found “51 percent of Americans calling themselves ‘pro-life’ on the issue of abortion and 42 percent ‘pro-choice.’ This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.”

This also won't help Barack Obama or the democrats. Obama is the most radical pro-abortion and infanticide president in history. One of his first actions as president was to lift a ban on funding for foreign abortions. He's also voted 4 times during his political career to support infanticide.

These are some incredibly telling polls!

It's just another sign that the Democrats currently in charge of this country are way out of step with the bulk of the populace of this country. Expect much, much more damage to be caused by these Democrats in the next 18 months...and then they'll get thrown out. Let's just hope it's not too late to recover the nation from that damage.

There's my two cents.

Change: Lowering The Punishment For Infanticide

This is just sick:

A Texas Democrat wants to make killing a baby a mere felony.

Democrat pro-abortion Catholic state Rep. Jessica Ferrar is pictured holding a Planned Parenthood Public Affairs Award. (Jill Stanek)

A Texas Democrat introduced the "Infanticide Bill" this week.
Cassy Fiano reported on this disgusting bill:

It defines infanticide as:

A person commits an offense if the person wilfully by an act or omission causes the death of a child to whom the person gave birth within the 12-month period preceding the child’s death

The bill says that infanticide should not be prosecuted as murder, though, as long as:

… at the time of the act or omission, the person’s judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following the birth.

Infanticide would become a felony, punishable by no more than two years in prison, with a minimum of 180 days, and/or a fine of no more than $10,000.

I doubt this will get any real traction, but I think the fact that it's even been proposed is the problem. It's a sign of the culture of death, and it's been unleashed with Barack Obama in the White House. After all, he's supported infanticide before...

There's my two cents.

Brownback Flushed His Signature Issue

All you Kansans out there: do you know where your Senators stand?

Yesterday the radical pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius was confirmed as the radical pro-abortion Barack Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services, and both Kansas Senators supported her.  While it's no surprise, it is interesting to discuss the ramifications of Sam Brownback's vote in a larger context.

Earlier this week I had mentioned this:

In an interview with Christianity Today in October of 2007, Brownback had this exchange:

Do you see abortion as a significant part of this [Presidential] campaign?

I see it as the lead moral issue of our day, just like slavery was the lead moral issue 150 years ago.

In that same interview, he expressed frustration that he wasn't given more of a podium to put forward his views on the subject.

Now let's examine Brownback's actions on Obama's nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services.  First, we know that Obama is the most pro-death President in recent memory, if not ever ( see here, here, here).  Thus, he would naturally surround himself with people of generally the same viewpoint, would he not?  Sebelius fits right in, aggressively advancing abortion as Governor of Kansas, in part by protecting mass abortion provider George (the 'baby-killer') Tiller.  This duo have paired up to allow Kansas to become the 'late term abortion capital of the world'.

Now Obama has nominated Sebelius to a higher post, and Brownback has an opportunity to take a vocal and visible stance against someone who is the very antithesis of what he calls 'the lead moral issue of the day'.

Will he?  Don't bet on it.  He's been silent so far.

After voting in favor of Sebelius, here's his justification (emphasis mine):

From the beginning, I have said that I would support the nomination of my fellow Kansan to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. There is a long tradition of bipartisanship in the Senate of supporting nominations from the same state regardless of party; in the last 20 years, only twice have home state senators not supported someone from their home state.

So, the conclusion from this is that Sam Brownback is more concerned with bipartisanship than his own self-professed 'lead moral issue of our day'.  How's that for principled leadership?

Don't get hung up too much on the abortion angle here - everyone knows where Sebelius, Obama, and Brownback stand on the issue, and there were no surprises here.  I only mention it to illustrate how Brownback's 'principle' is in direct opposition to Sebelius' record, which tells us how vacant and non-existent Brownback's principles really are.  This could have played out on any number of issues, it just happens to be abortion in this case.  The greater point is that if Brownback cannot be trusted to uphold what he considers and professes to be his signature issue, and instead caves for the sake of bipartisanship, then he cannot be trusted on any other issue of lesser importance, either.

And that, my friends, is precisely the point of the Tea Parties earlier this month.  Americans are sick and tired of elected representatives who no longer represent us.  We are sick and tired of political calculation trumping the right thing to do.  We are tired of politicians saying one thing at home and doing another in Washington.  We are sick and tired of collective back-scratching at the expense of...well, of us.  It's almost as if Washington has sealed itself off in a little bubble, barely aware that anyone exists outside their little party except when they deign to acknowledge us peons out here.  Unfortunately, most of the control of the wealth, law, and power in this country is held within that bubble.

That's what absolutely must change as quickly as possible if we are to bring America back from the brink of disaster.  Rule of thumb to live by for the foreseeable future:

VOTE. THEM. HOME.

There's my two cents.

This Is Why Sam Brownback Can't Be Trusted

I know, I know, conservatives loooove Sam Brownback.  He's pretty staunch on most conservative issues (though not all...remember his pathetic and disingenuous flip-flop on amnesty?), and that's great.  But is he strong enough to withstand the harshest of political storms?  The biggest thing he's known for is his pro-life stance.  He's kind of an icon when it comes to abortion and life issues.  Well, at least he used to be.  Apparently political hackery is more important to him than standing on what he himself called his signature issue.  Allow me to demonstrate why Sam Brownback can't be trusted.

In an interview with Christianity Today in October of 2007, Brownback had this exchange:

Do you see abortion as a significant part of this [Presidential] campaign?

I see it as the lead moral issue of our day, just like slavery was the lead moral issue 150 years ago.

In that same interview, he expressed frustration that he wasn't given more of a podium to put forward his views on the subject.

Now let's examine Brownback's actions on Obama's nomination of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services.  First, we know that Obama is the most pro-death President in recent memory, if not ever ( see here, here, here).  Thus, he would naturally surround himself with people of generally the same viewpoint, would he not?  Sebelius fits right in, aggressively advancing abortion as Governor of Kansas, in part by protecting mass abortion provider George (the 'baby-killer') Tiller.  This duo have paired up to allow Kansas to become the 'late term abortion capital of the world'.

Now Obama has nominated Sebelius to a higher post, and Brownback has an opportunity to take a vocal and visible stance against someone who is the very antithesis of what he calls 'the lead moral issue of the day'.

Will he?  Don't bet on it.  He's been silent so far.

Typically, the Senators of a state will support a nominee of the same state, even if there are some pretty major differences of opinion.  It's business as usual.  But, in this case, it seems we have more than a difference of opinion - it's a diametrically opposed philosophy of stated central principles.

Even worse, Sebelius has twice had to change her story when testifying before Congress, once to reveal that she had failed to pay her taxes correctly (apparently a pre-requisite for an Obama cabinet member), and once to reveal that she actually took a boatload more money from George Tiller than she initially admitted.  So, not only is she aggressively pro-abortion, she is a pathological liar.

In a letter sent from various pro-life and pro-family groups to members of Congress, the case against her approval is summarized nicely:

• Failed to pay taxes.  Governor Sebelius found it necessary to correct three years worth of tax returns, inform the Senate of this serious financial oversight and subsequently paid, some $7000 in back taxes.
• Failed to disclose campaign contributions. Gov. Sebelius initially failed to disclose to senators the $35,000 in personal and PAC contributions she received from notorious late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller and another $200,000 that Tiller donated to ProKanDo, a political action committee (PAC) dedicated to defeating her pro-life gubernatorial opponent.
• Built her political career on abortion money. Not only did Governor Sebelius receive significant money from Kansas abortion and late-term abortion clinics, but she also vetoed every piece of legislation that would have provided even the most minimal oversight over these providers, putting the health of thousands of Kansas women at risk.
• Advocates taxpayer funded abortions. Gov. Sebelius favors publicly-funded abortion at home and abroad — a stance that places her far outside the mainstream. In doing so she also makes a mockery of the millions of struggling working families who will scrape and save to pay their taxes during this recession, only to see their hard-earned dollars pay for abortions on demand.
• Takes a position far outside the mainstream in support of late-term abortions.  Although 80% of Americans disapprove of late-term abortion, Gov. Sebelius advocates it relentlessly. Wichita is known as the late-term abortion capital of the Midwest despite its fairly restrictive laws, thanks to Gov. Sebelius's refusal to enforce the will of the people. With such an utter disregard for the position of an overwhelming majority of Americans, Gov. Sebelius is clearly too ideological and partisan to oversee the health care of 300 million people.

Incidentally, you should all feel free to contact your Senators' office to weigh in on your opinion of this woman's qualifications to hold this office.

For Kansans in particular, the question is: will Sam Brownback man up?  Will he buck political correctness and 'business as usual' to stand up for his signature issue?  The vote is coming soon, so we'll find out before too long.

All you Kansans out there - pay attention.  Brownback is running for Governor in the next go-around.  You need to understand the strength of the convictions of this man who wants to lead your state.  If he is willing to fold and compromise on what he himself calls the most important issue, then it is foolish to think he wouldn't do the same on any other issue in the future, too.

There's my two cents.

Notre Dame Invites Most Pro-Death President To Speak

For those of you who are Catholic, this is probably something you've heard about already. For those of us who aren't Catholic, it's still a big deal in terms of the sanctity of life. First, the sterilized AP version:

Jimmy Carter came to Notre Dame in 1977. So did Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George W. Bush in 2001.

The University of Notre Dame has a tradition of inviting new presidents to speak at graduation. But this year's selection of President Barack Obama has been met by a barrage of criticism that has left some students fearing their commencement ceremony will turn into a circus.

Many Catholics are angered by Obama's planned appearance at the May 17 ceremony because of his decisions to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and international family planning groups that provide abortions or educate about the procedure.

The consensus Thursday on the campus of the nation's largest Catholic university was that any president should be welcomed at Notre Dame.

Not according to a growing number of Notre Dame student groups, bishops, and other Catholics around the country. Some choice quotes:

President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred. While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.

And:

A number of student groups at the University of Notre Dame issued a statement today repudiating the University’s selection of President Barack Obama to deliver its 2009 Commencement Address. The statement criticizes the president’s position on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and other life issues, and chastises University administration for apparently looking over what they termed "fundamental moral principles."

An online petition -- boasting over two hundred thousand signatures -- protesting the 'scandal' of having Obama speak at commencement is rapidly gaining steam. Now, even a Cardinal has joined the chorus demanding Notre Dame withdraw its invitation:

I find the invitation very disappointing. Though I can understand the desire by a university to have the prestige of a commencement address by the President of the United States, the fundamental moral issue of the inestimable worth of the human person from conception to natural death is a principle that soaks all our lives as Catholics, and all our efforts at formation, especially education at Catholic places of higher learning.”

The President has made clear by word and deed that he will promote abortion and will remove even those limited sanctions that control this act of violence against the human person.

Why the outrage? If you don't know the record, here's a refresher from Gateway Pundit:

Already, Obama has signed several major pieces of abortion legislation in his first 50 days in office including funding foreign abortions. He also signed legislation to use taxpayer money to kill embryos in research.

Barack Obama is the most radical pro-abortion and infanticide president in the last 35 years. Barack Obama even voted 4 times to support infanticide.

The Vatican already attacked "arrogant" Barack Obama for using taxpayer money to fund foreign abortions.

We've also covered his aggressively pro-abortion positions here, including scuttling a ban on infanticide (see here, here, and here) while in the Illinois legislature, the same ban which passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (and which NARAL even supported).

There is no doubt that Barack Obama is the most pro-death President we've had. His record proves it. It will be very interesting to see how one of the most venerable Catholic insitutions in the nation will handle this situation.

Even if the school administration refuses to withdraw the invitation, the students and faculty still have a choice that could prove almost as effective - don't show up. It would send a clear and unmistakable message if Obama gave his commencement speech to an empty auditorium. It would also prove that there is at least one religion besides Islam that is willing to stand on its core principles no matter what.

There's my two cents.

George Tiller The Baby-Killer Update

For Kansans, here's an update on a major local trial:

The trial of late-term abortion doc George Tiller should go to the jury sometime today in Wichita. For Kansans who have read and heard about Tiller for years — and especially for pro-life conservatives, for whom Tiller has been the poster-boy not just of near-birth abortions but of political corruption as well — wrap of the case probably comes as a climax of sorts. Their hope is that a jury will finally put a stop to his barbaric practices.

The secondary complaint about Tiller has always been his ability to use political connections to avoid the enforcement of state regulations governing late-term abortions (the fact that he does them at all is the primary gripe, of course). His direct and indirect financial support of Kathleen Sebelius, combined with a judicial selection process that is completely opaque and deeply political, bought him years of immunity and reduced the state's late-term abortion law to a statutory wink. The laws were there, but enforcing them was not an option.

That changed when an activist pro-life Attorney General, Phill Kline, was elected in Kansas in 2002. Conservatives almost never win statewide office in Kansas (Brownback is the only other); the state is run by a coalition of "moderate" (read center-left) Republicans and Democrats. In taking on Tiller, Kline took on the political establishment in Kansas, most notably Sebelius's political coalition and the once-powerful Kansas City Star, a paper so devoted to the cause of unrestricted abortion that it used to accept awards from Planned Parenthood for its unstinting adoration of "the right to choose," no matter why, when, or by whom that choice is made.

He also made powerful enemies, of course, and was ultimately destroyed, politically and financially. Although he's now teaching law in Virginia, they pursue him still. But on his way out, he launched a couple of investigations, including the one that has brought Tiller to court. If it goes badly, pro-life advocates may wish he hadn't.

Kline's successor, Paul Morrison, was recruited by Sebelius to run the Attorney General's office in a Tiller-friendly fashion. He successfully tossed many of the charges Tiller would have faced under Kline, but because not all of the lower-court judges are Sebelius loyalists, the "technical" misdemeanors with which Tiller's been charged — conducting late-term abortions without getting a supporting opinion from another doctor with whom he has no legal or financial association — somehow survived.

That's either a miracle or a black-chopper plot, considering Morrison, who resigned in a sex scandal, was replaced when Sebelius appointed another avidly pro-choice Attorney General, Steve Six. The governor, one of the most aggressive supporters of abortion in the country (and soon to be HHS secretary), thus has a great deal of say over this process. In Kansas, much of the judiciary is under the control of the governor through a closed-door appointment process unlike any in any other state.

I've spoken to several people who are very close to this case, and the expectation is that Tiller will be acquitted.

The state's lackadaisal case, one knowledgeable observer said, was "embarrassing." The state assigned a single prosecutor to the case. Tiller has a five-member team, including a former U.S. Attorney. The state called one witness — Kristin Neuhaus, the doctor who signed off on Tiller's near-birth abortions. She was given immunity by Six and, not surprisingly, was an extremely hostile witness. The prosecution, over which Six can exert direct control, had available "reams of documents" dealing with the case and didn't use them. Tiller's accountant wasn't even called. Ironically, as more than one trial-follower noted, the only thing that might convict Tiller is the statements he made himself when he was, perhaps unwisely, asked by his defense team to take the stand himself. There, he let slip that Neuhaus worked for him and was part of his "organization" — before quickly correcting himself.

One person described has described it as a "show trial." The person meant it literally, that it was just for show, so that Tiller's supporters can say he got his day in court and won. That's the conspiracy theory. One insider said that Tiller's acquittal, if it comes later today, "would devastate the effort to enforce abortion laws in Kansas for years, decades. Those illegal abortions will go on forever, and the whole thing will be blown up in the press as a 'witch hunt' launched by Phill Kline.'" The whole thing, another insider said, "was a lay-down. The Attorney General is hoping he doesn't win this case."

So that's bad. Worse is what will happen to the other prosecution that, thanks to a brave district court judge, wouldn't go away: Planned Parenthood has been charged with falsifying documents, apparently as a way of justifying not reporting illegal abortions, including those done on children as young as 12, 13, 14. There are, I'm told, thousands of these, and "every single one is a sex crime" that will never be prosecuted. Tiller's acquittal will make a successful prosecution of Planned Parenthood virtually impossible.

Pro-life activists of the street-demo variety have been all over the trial, even as most regional newspapers have avoided covering it, relying on AP reports. Online news-site Kansas Liberty has been attentive. More strategically-minded activists have been maintaining a pretty thoughtful vigil, hopeful of a conviction, but realistic at the same time.

Just keeping you up to date.  We'll see what happens with the verdict.

***UPDATE***
Looks like Tiller was found not guilty on all charges.

There's my two cents.

More Thoughts On Obama's Stem Cell Order

Here are some more thoughts from the professionals regarding Obama's recent order to free embryonic stem cell research:

Kathryn Jean Lopez

Obama Lifts Restrictions on Stem Cell Research; Wants Congress To Do More

By Alex Wayne and Adriel Bettelheim, CQ Staff

By lifting former President George W. Bush ’s restrictions on funding embryonic stem cell research, President Obama creates an opportunity for Congress to write new rules assuring expanded government support for the fast-growing field.

Codifying the Obama administration’s position would enable stem cell researchers to tap some of the $10 billion in funding for National Institutes of Health biomedical research contained in the recently enacted economic stimulus package (PL 111-5).

It also would block any of Obama’s successors from overturning his support through similar executive actions.

“Congress is likely to cement this policy so it would take a majority of the House and Senate to overturn it,” said Michael Rugnetta, a bioethics researcher at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank that advised the administration on the issue.

Yuval Levin

Even for those of us who expected the worst from the Obama stem cell policy, the actual text of his Executive Order is a bit of a shock. It describes no particular ethical restraints whatsoever—not against funding the use of embryos created for research, or cloned embryos, or anything else. And it offers not even a mention of an ethical debate. The only case for the policy it makes is that “advances over the past decade in this promising scientific field have been encouraging, leading to broad agreement in the scientific community that the research should be supported by Federal funds.” Agreement in the scientific community seems to be all that matters in making federal funding policy. And it then leaves it up to NIH to make all the rules. It’s all science and no ethics, and doesn't even bother to pretend otherwise.

James C. Capretta

It seems the president’s moderate-sounding rhetoric during the campaign and early days in office had convinced many in the political class that he would abandon the political identity he had forged while serving as a legislator and govern from the center.

Now they know better, or at least they should.

Let’s hope the same awakening is occurring among those self-described pro-lifers who vociferously supported the Obama candidacy.

Governing is choosing, as the saying goes, and no amount of words can obscure the priorities reflected in President Obama’s decisions. Less than two months into his term, it should be obvious to all concerned, including voters, that the president’s sympathies lie with a strongly liberal social-policy agenda which is completely at odds with any sensible understanding of traditional moral reasoning.

What does this mean for pro-lifers? Going forward, there should be little wasted energy on “common ground” efforts. What’s needed are tactics to minimize the damage while a thoughtful game plan is put in place to use the excesses of the Obama agenda to leverage electoral victories the next time voters go to the polls.

Charles Krauthammer

What Obama is doing is he's expanding the range of the federal funding of research involving embryonic stem cells. He is allowing the use of embryos that were created in fertility clinics and are not going to be used anymore.

Now, I supported that when I was on the president's council of bioethics and in my writing, which I suppose is why the White House invited me to the signing ceremony.

But I declined for three reasons. One is the president has left open the cloning of human embryos in order to destroy them in experiments. Secondly, he leaves open the creation of human embryos entirely for the purpose of research and experimentation.

And thirdly, he had a memorandum which he signed in which he talks about restoring the scientific integrity in government decisions, which is an outrageous attack on Bush.

I disagreed with where Bush ended up drawing the line on permissible research, but he gave in August of 2001 the single most morally serious presidential speech on medical ethics ever given, and Obama did not, even though I agree on where — I agree more on where he ended up.

So I think it was disrespectful. And in pretending, as Obama did, that there's never a conflict between ethics and science, he was wrong.

Just some more food for thought.

There's my two cents.

Obama Furthers The Culture Of Death

Washington Post:

President Obama is planning to sign an executive order on Monday rolling back restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, according to sources close to the issue.

Although the exact wording of the order has not been revealed, the White House plans an 11 a.m. ceremony to sign the order repealing one of the most controversial steps taken by his predecessor, fulfilling one of Obama's eagerly anticipated campaign promises.

The move, long sought by scientists and patient advocates and opposed by religious groups, would enable the National Institutes of Health to consider requests from scientists to study hundreds of lines of cells that have been developed since the limitations were put in place -- lines that scientists and patient advocate say hold great hope for leading to cures for a host of major ailments.

That 'controversial' step by Bush wasn't exactly controversial.  It allowed research to continue on the stem cell lines that had already been developed, but prevented the creation of new ones.  So what did that 'controversial' move result in?  Incredible progress.  Back in August of last year, I blogged about two specific breakthroughs:

Researchers at the government-backed National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology said they created stem cells of the type found in human embryos using the removed wisdom teeth of a 10-year-old girl.

"This is significant in two ways," team leader Hajime Ogushi told AFP. "One is that we can avoid the ethical issues of stem cells because wisdom teeth are destined to be thrown away anyway.

"Also, we used teeth that had been extracted three years ago and had been preserved in a freezer. That means that it's easy for us to stock this source of stem cells."

The announcement follows the groundbreaking discovery by US and Japanese scientists last year that they could produce stem cells from skin, a finding that was hailed by the Vatican and US President George W. Bush.

And:

A team at Harvard has succeeded in directly reprogramming one type of adult cell into another, without even the need for the intermediary step of reprogramming to a pseudo-embryonic state and only then differentiating to a new developed cell type. In other words, not only do they not need embryos, they don't even need stem cells at all; they can just turn one type of cell into another directly. What's more, they've done this inside a living animal (a mouse), and not just in a laboratory dish.

These new procedures have opened the floodgates for researchers and scientists to create the same kind of stem cells that would be obtained through embryonic stem cell research, rendering the legitimately controversial and much-abhorred practice of creating embryos simply for the purpose of destroying them utterly without benefit.  And, I might add, there have been literally dozens of cures and treatments created from non-embryonic stem cell research that are helping and saving lives at this very moment.  How many treatments are there from embryonic research?  None.  Not one.  Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.

As I said at the time, there is now absolutely no reason to continue embryonic stem cell research.  Why would anyone continue a practice that is at the least undeniably questionable -- and at the worst morally repugnant to millions of people -- when there are multiple alternative ways to achieve the same scientific result?  Even worse, those millions of people who equate embryonic stem cell research with murder are being forced to pay for it!

We knew this about Barack Obama.  He's not just pro-choice, he's so radically pro-abortion that he supported infanticide (here, here, here) on the non-existent chance that to oppose it might possibly infringe upon Roe v. Wade.  He promised Planned Parenthood that he would further the cause of tax-payer funded abortion on demand for any reason any time during the pregnancy, and now he's simply following through.

I'm going to make this personal now, because this is a critically important issue.  If you call yourself a Christian or a Jew or a member of any other religion that supposedly cherishes life and views it as being a gift from God, or even if you say you value life itself, how can you still support Barack Obama?  There is ample evidence in this post and its links to lay out the case that Barack Obama is a radical pro-abortionist, especially with this latest move.  It will benefit no one but the abortion industry.  It will force taxpayers who fervently oppose abortion to pay for millions of them each year.  It will provide no cures or treatments that wouldn't otherwise be developed.

Barack Obama is furthering the Culture of Death, one unborn soul at a time.

There's my two cents.

A Taste Of Things To Come

Now that the Obamessiah is President and the Democrats own Congress, here are a few questions and observations to ponder. Draw your own conclusions.

Is dissent still patriotic? It most certainly was when Bush was President, so I'm sure it will be now, too. Right?

Moving on, how are the fundamentals of our economy? Obama just said this:

We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished.

Patterico points out: "In other words . . . the fundamentals of our economy are strong — the exact point that John McCain was pilloried for making during the campaign." Hmmm...

Most ethical Congress in history? Uh...no:

[The rules] change allows Democrats to vote for tax increases without having to put themselves clearly on the record for higher taxes. In the last Congress, minority Republicans forced four such votes, putting Democrats squarely on the record for tax increases that were contained in two energy bills, the farm bill, and a bill related to bailing out holders of troubled mortgages. In all four cases, the Democrats won, but at least their priorities were recorded for the record.

The report then notes that such a vote could later become the subject of a political ad. With the new rules change, Democrats are protecting themselves from the kind of accountability that Republicans faced when they were in the majority, and which majority Democrats also faced prior to their loss of Congressional control in 1994.

Still, as much as Republicans disliked Democrats' use of the House rules against them, they never tried to take away the minority's right to do this. Democrats are now cracking down.

Did you know that one of the first things Obama did as President was to fund foreign abortions? I guess that's one campaign promise that he actually kept. It's sadly ironic, then, that a majority of Catholic voters supported him.

In the next installment of Name That Party!, we have this on the game board:

Portland mayor admits to gay sex with teen intern. An intern he was mentoring in the ways of gayness and politics. I. S***. You. Not.

But it's worse than that, he admitted to lying about having gay sex with his intern. And I always thought it wasn't the crime, it was the coverup? At least, that's what my betters in the media are always telling me.

The AP seems to think party affiliation doesn't matter here. I'm sure they never reported Larry Craig's party affiliation either, what with the fairness and all. Anyway Mayor Sam Adams (seriously, that's his name) apologized. Time to move on folks. Time to move on

Um...I thought it was the simple act of thinking about an affair that mattered, wasn't it? Larry Craig, Tom Foley, etc. didn't even get to first base with their interns, and yet Bill Clinton and Sam Adams rounded home plate. Can we say...



For an astounding glimpse into the mind of someone who's been addled by the Obamessiah Kool-Aid, listen to this phone call to a bill collector left at Citibank about a delinquent car. Listen (h/t AoS):

Crazy Kool-Aid Lady

Remind you of anyone?

Koooooool-Aaaaiiiiiiiid...!

Speaking of children's snacks, some liberal apparently thinks he's found a cookie with the Obamessiah's face on it:

Um...okaaaaaay... They're selling it on eBay, and it's currently sitting at $8.94. This pitiful price might make one think that the Obamessiah isn't quite as holy as the Virgin Mary. Yet. I'm sure he will once he lowers the oceans.

You know, it's going to be an extremely frustrating couple of years...but if these stories are any indication, it'll be pretty amusing, too.

There's my two cents.

A Short Video On...

...life (h/t The Jawa Report):

Powerful stuff. Hopefully it reaches some people, especially now.

There's my two cents.

Planned Parenthood In All Its Glory

You've got to see this undercover video inside a Planned Parenthood clinic to believe it:

Indiana Planned Parenthood Covers Up Sexual Abuse of 13-year Old - video powered by Metacafe

While you're digesting all that, here's some background information:

New footage released today from an undercover camera inside an abortion clinic in Bloomington shows Planned Parenthood staff deliberately violating the state’s mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse.

The footage shows Lila Rose, a UCLA student journalist and president of right-to-life advocacy group Live Action, posing as a 13-year-old girl. In an appointment with a Planned Parenthood nurse, Rose says she has been impregnated by a 31-year-old man, a clear case of child molestation under Indiana state law.

On tape, the nurse acknowledges her responsibility to report the abuse, but assures Rose she will not. The nurse says, “I am supposed to report to Child Protective Services,” but tells Rose, “Okay, I didn’t hear the age [of the 31-year-old]. I don’t want to know the age.”

She then instructs Rose how to obtain a secret abortion by crossing state lines in order to avoid Indiana’s parental consent law. The nurse also coaches Rose to cover for the 31-year-old man by saying he is only 14. She says, “You’ve seen him around, you know he’s 14, he’s in your grade and whatever. You know what I mean.”

Rose said she and other students in Live Action recorded the video over the summer in a multi-state investigation of the abortion industry. Rose described the undercover audit, called The Mona Lisa Project, as “demonstrating the routine lawlessness of abortion providers at Planned Parenthood.” Rose noted, “Today’s video release is only a sample from many hours of similarly disturbing footage.”

Planned Parenthood, a tax-exempt nonprofit, made over $100 million in profits last year and has a billion-dollar budget, nearly a third of which comes from taxpayers through government funding.

So, where are the calls for prosecution? Where is the outrage? Where are the threats to withdraw all federal funding from this organization?

[...crickets chirping in the distance...]

After this video got posted online, that particular staffer was suspended while an investigation was being conducted. While it's good that she's out of the picture, I have a hard time believing they're going to try real hard to root out the truth on a grand scale. I don't think they're sorry it happened, they're just sorry they got busted. It'll be interesting to see what else the Mona Lisa Project comes out with in the future. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we found Planned Parenthood to be as equally corrupt as ACORN, and both organizations should have all federal funding cut off immediately.

By the way, Barack the Obamessiah committed to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as his 'first act in office' to a gathering of Planned Parenthood folks. Quite a cozy relationship, huh?

One final note about this glorious organization:

In what could easily become the most offensive Christmas offer ever a Planned Parenthood affiliate is offering Christmas gift certificates. Purchasers can use them to give the gift of abortion even though the group claims that's not its purpose or intent.

"Looking for an unusual, yet practical gift this holiday season? Planned Parenthood of Indiana (PPIN) is now offering gift certificates for services or the recipient's choice of birth control method," the abortion business says.

Or, as The Jawa Report puts it: give the gift of death for Christmas!

How about we start with killing all taxpayer funding for this glorious bunch?

There's my two cents.

Told You So!

Yep, it's just as we figured: Obama isn't wasting any time in implementing his far-Left agenda. The idea that he will govern as a centrist is simply idiotic, and intended only to persuade those who don't know Obama's background and track record to sit still while Obama implements the most far-Left agenda of any President in history. Still two months away from actually becoming the President, and without filling his cabinet, the Obamessiah has already taken aim at a number of Bush policies.

Abortion
As promised, Obama has developed a list of about 200 policies that he feels Bush implemented for 'political' reasons, one of which is embryonic stem cells. Remember, Bush signed an order that allowed experimentation on those lines of stem cells that already existed, but prevented any new lines from being developed. Also recall that, because of that policy, researchers have now found ways to create pluripotent stem cells out of adult non-embryonic cells, so there is absolutely no reason for anyone to pursue the controversial embryonic stem cell harvesting. He's going to do it anyway. For Obama, it's all abortion, all the time, for any reason. I'm sure it won't be long until he actually hammers the abortion thing, too - that was his promise to Planned Parenthood, after all.

International Capitulation

US President-elect Barack Obama has not given a commitment to go ahead with plans to build part of a US missile defence system in Poland, an aide says.

He was speaking after Polish President Lech Kaczynski's office said a pledge had been made during a phone conversation between the two men.

But Mr Obama's foreign policy adviser, Denis McDonough, denied this.

Russia opposes the US scheme and has announced plans to deploy missiles on Poland's border as a counter-measure.

More here:

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory In Iraq

Eight years ago the Butcher of Baghdad was ruling Iraq.
The Taliban was in control of Afghanistan.
Libya was working on weapons of mass destruction.
Al-Qaeda was playing offense.
Not today.
Today... The Iraqi government is in control of 13 of 18 provinces.
Today... Iraqi and US Casualties are at record lows.
Afghanistan and Iraq are fledgling democracies.
Al-Qaeda's leadership has been decimated and the terrorists are on the run.
The Taliban is out of power.

But, that could all change with the radical in the White House. Al-Qaeda is already celebrating the Obama win. Obama has promised to withdraw troops from Iraq. Afghanistan is struggling with the Taliban again. Pakistan is unstable. Iran is developing nukes.

It's no secret that Obama has been against the war all along - one of his main campaign promises was to get us out of Iraq ASAP no matter the cost. The war is, by all accounts, won...all that's left is the mopping up. But, if Obama pulls us out before Iraq is truly ready to stand on its own, it will descend into chaos and create a defeat where victory once existed.

Also, I feel I should point out that Obama's unwillingness to speak and act strongly is exceedingly dangerous for another reason. If neither Russia nor Iran feel threatened by a President Obama, they will feel similarly emboldened to implement their conquest goals. Israel, too, will feel even more isolated than they already are, and will be much more likely to conduct a pre-emptive strike of some kind. Obama's known positions of weakness will only make this world more dangerous, and we are already seeing the effects of that weakness.

Media Bias For Obama
The Washington Post admits it:

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors -- like most of the national news media -- found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

...One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

Chris 'tingle-up-my-leg' Matthews makes it a public pronouncement:

More incidents of bias can be found at the link above. The point is: they're now admitting it openly. So, what does this do to their credibility? The only realistic solution is for millions of Americans to cancel their subscriptions to these newspapers and magazines, and to stop watching these channels and shows. It has now been demonstrated beyond doubt that the mainstream media has voluntarily refused to do its job -- reporting of facts and news -- instead succumbing to their own personal biases and desires. When that happens, they become useless to the American public. Ditch 'em, and get your real news at places where it can be trusted (like here!).

Change In More Ways Than One
The official Obama website, Change.gov, has already been busted for doing the same sort of fact-scrubbing that his campaign conducted. Gateway Pundit has the screenshots to prove it:

In the first 24 hours since they set up their Office of the President-Elect website, the plans already changed.

The Marxist youth work programs were required yesterday.
Here's the original plan:

Click to Enlarge
The first draft discussing Obama's Marxist Youth Corps said it was required:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

But, after all of the noise over this controversial requirement, in less than 24 hours Change.gov changed:

Click to Enlarge
Now, the national youth corps is optional:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

Of course, Change.gov did not mention their changes.

For all of these important issues and many more to come...Told You So!

Now, the important thing is to pay attention to those of us who correctly predicted what an Obama presidency would look like. That's the only way to fix what the Obamessiah is about to break.

There's my two cents.