Is Obama more like a Communist or Capitalist?
July 2, 2009 by Steven Ting
Filed under Civil Rights, General, Politics
Since Obama has taken office, he has been many things to many people. The touts great ideas but when things don’t go his way, instead of taking responsibility, he tries to place the blame on someone else. We’ve seen in the past that instead of keeping government in check, Obama is expanding government. Government is taking over every little big in our lives.
I was recently pointed to the following video. It’s a cartoon from 1948. This is the stuff we should be teaching in our schools. It’s about 10 minutes long but after you watch, you can decide. Is Obama more Communist or Capitalist?
Obama Declares June National LGBT Pride Month
July 2, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General, Politics
On June 1, 2009, the Obama Adminstration released a statement declaring the month of June to be henceforth a celebration of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender pride. One might wonder why our Federal Government is endorsing a lifestyle that cannot contribute positively to society as a whole, rather than celebrating lasting marriage between a man and a woman, which is ultimately the only relationship with a profoundly good effect on children.
Frank Turek’s article, “Gay Marriage:Â Even Liberals Know It’s Bad,” addresses the issue of homosexual marriage specifically:
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt?  Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage.
He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”
How so?
The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.
So what?
People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy…
Well, if marriage isn’t about children, what institution is about children?   And if we’re going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should the state endorse same-sex marriage at all?
Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.
That conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with what’s best for children and society.  Just ask pro-gay, liberal democrat David Blankenhorn.
Mr. Turek shows examples of countries that have legalized gay marriage in his article that have seen a breakdown in marriages altogether, in addition to a dramatic increase in children born out of wedlock and a disintegration of families. There is no possible benefit to society in endorsing something that can lead to the breakdown of families and depriving children of either a mother or a father and a stable home. Many studies show the variety of negative effects that children from broken homes suffer, and anything that could lead to its increase should not be endorsed in any way by the government.
Obama has new Iran response
June 20, 2009 by Steven Ting
Filed under Civil Rights, General, International, Politics
Yesterday, Obama updated his response to Iran.
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
This is what he should have said the first time. Also, the right to assembly and free speech might be universial rights in the United States, but they are not necessarily rights in other countries. Take China as an example. China censors everything like crazy but the United States doesn’t lecture them. Why is it that we only respond when there is a problem? Because it’s politically advantageous.
So previously, Obama did not want the United States to appear as meddling. So what are we doing now? From the Iran Government perspective, this is now meddling. Once again, Obama gets schooled in International Politics.
New Surveys Show Centrism, Pro-Life Stance on the Rise
May 24, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General
We are living in a country led by the most liberal president in U.S. history, who also has many supporters in the Congress. However, surveys have shown that most of the country does not share in the liberal views of its current leaders. A Pew Research Survey has shown that the number of voters who identify themselves as independents has grown, leading to a large number of people with diverse views that will not always agree with the issues Obama is pushing. Here is an article that details some of the results of the survey:
Barack Obama‘s presidency has ushered in an era of centrism, with the country experiencing such a boost in independent voters that they now make up the largest proportion of the electorate in 70 years.
This fickle group doesn’t have uniform opinions, so its dominance carries potential risks for emboldened Democrats and opportunities for out-of-power Republicans.
A new, expansive Pew Research Center survey that contained those details also found that the nation’s values haven’t fundamentally changed. The country hasn’t become more ideologically liberal or conservative despite sweeping Democratic victories at all levels of government last fall and shrinking GOP ranks.
Broadly, the findings indicate that it’s politically dangerous for the new president and his fellow Democrats who control Congress to move too far to the left on domestic and foreign issues, lest they turn off middle-of-the-road voters whose support was critical in 2008 and will be important in upcoming elections.
The results also suggest that the public recently has rejected the GOP for poor performance, not because it disagrees with the party’s positions on key issues…
Because of its viewpoint diversity, analysts say the growing independent sector could slip from the Democrats’ grasp as Obama pushes an ambitious agenda that’s different from his predecessor’s.
“We’ve moved from a less activist government to a more activist government, and the two-mindedness in the reaction of independents, I think, to some extent is response to that,” Kohut said.
That said, Kohut added: “Obama’s doing very well with independents. But they have some reservations … about growing government and about growing debt.” He called those issues “red flags” for the party.
In addition, a Gallup Poll published recently has shown that for the first time since 1995, more Americans identify themselves as pro-life than pro-choice.  This offers a slight contrast (or addition) to the information obtained in the Pew Poll that said that there was essentially no difference in the makeup of conservative or liberal views in the nation, despite the large shift to centrism. Here are excerpts from the study and their conclusions:
A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.”…
The new results, obtained from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.
The May 2009 survey documents comparable changes in public views about the legality of abortion. In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion…
With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation’s policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans — and, in particular, Republicans — seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.
It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public’s understanding of what it means to be “pro-choice” slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.
It seems that having a liberal president will perhaps have the long-term effect of polarizing the country’s political views, and ultimately turning the tide in favor of conservative views on the controversial views facing the country. Obama and the Democrats would be wise to take notice of these changes, and discontinue their campaign for far-left legislation.
Barack Obama Abortionist – in – Chief
May 20, 2009 by Guest Writer 2
Filed under Civil Rights, General
Abortion seems to be one of those flies swarming around President Elect Barack Obama. He has championed partial birth abortion and attempted to deny basic health care to children that survive abortions all while in the Illinois Senate. Now he is in the position to sign into law bills that could damage both the pro-life and the pro-choice movements.
American Sentinel published a thought provoking article about how abortions effect the black community and if anyone has noticed the conflict of interest within the black community by voting in a man who supports the very action that is killing 5% of the black population. It has been reported that 50 abortions happen per 1000 black women. However the numbers are far more alarming when you consider abortions per live births for black women,543 abortions happen per 1000 births . It truly is a dangerous time to be a black baby when you only have a 50% chance of being born. That is a serious wound on the black inner city culture. Anne Hendershot relates that abortion clinics are as common as dollar stores on the streets.National Black Pro Life Union, abortion is the number one killer of African Americans.America. Obama supporters are confident the President Elect will support a measure by congress to reinstitute funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA). Funding to UNPFA was stopped by the Bush Administration in 2002 citing the Kemp-Kasten Amendment. The Amendments prohibits funds from supporting forced or coercive abortions.China‘s one child policy.Some feel it is not only the responsibility of Barack Obama to address this issue, but the responsibility of other black leaders like Al Sharpton, Collin Powell, Condaleeza Rice, Jeremiah Write, and Jesse Jackson.
Barack Obama’s views on abortions not only fly in the face of pro-life advocates but also pro-choice and the reach is far beyond the borders of
According to Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte UNDFA funds went to enforcing
UNFPA provides support for and participates in the management of the Chinese government’s program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.”Yet the silence is deafening from the pro-choice crowd in the main stream media, Chinese women are being forced into sterilization and abortion and have been deprived of choice.
For those who enjoy looking at data and statistics. Most of the numbers in the above article can be found at the Guttmacher Institute website. – Courtesy of DaughterofAmerica
Considering the subject of the article, is it any wonder that the Abortionist-in-chief inspired protests from pro-life catholic students and pro-life catholic adults at the commencement speech at Notre Dame today? Barack Obama’s position is not simply that of pro-choice, but is also close to sickening. While he worried about passing laws to allow partial-birth abortions, there were other laws introduced that would have lead to initiatives to curb unplanned pregnancy before the choice of abortion was forced upon a woman. His empty claim in wanting to promote these initiatives falls short of true action, a vote.
Why would a Catholic Institution invite anyone to speak at commencement who has caused so much harm to the unborn innocent lives? Is it not bad enough that Catholicism has to deal with its own demons, as well as trying to convince America that they hold true to a doctrine inspired by Jesus Christ.
