TOPIC: Obama Wins South Carolina; Hilary Comes in Second; Edwards is a Loser!
Photo by Stefan Zaklin
With most of the precincts reporting, it seems that Barack Obama has won the South Carolina Democratic primary. Hilary Clinton (that name makes me shudder) came in second and John Edwards is a loser (which is fair since he's such a liar and fake, anyway).
Already, there are stirrings in Washington that Senator Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy will endorse Obama this coming week. Well, that settles the idea for me. IF I were ever considering voting for Barack Obama, that idea just flew out the window on the wings of one of Teddy Kennedy's liquor bottles. Kennedy is one of the most liberal, liberals in the US government. If he endorse a candidate, it's highly likely that candidate is much like Ted Kennedy. After all, the Kennedy ego is huge and well-rooted in the status quo of their beliefs. Therefore, any candidate accepting Ted Kennedy's endorsement is a liberal's, liberal -- or one in the making.
Barack Obama can say he's a Bible believing Christian all he wants. BUT, if he accepts the anti-Christian, anti-anything-conservative-or-traditional-values-oriented Kennedy endorsement, then I'd say something smells very fishy! The amoral ideas for which Ted Kennedy stands are at polar opposites from that of a Bible believing Christian. So, which will it be Obama? Are you really a Christian Democrat or a Kennedy liberal?

TOPIC: Cindy Sheehan Will Crawl Back Under Her Rock? YEAH!
The totally clueless and hopelessly lost in liberalism Cindy Sheehan has "resigned" as "the face" of the anti-war movement. Good. It's about time her lies and irrelevant banter took their toll -- and forced her into "retirement". Now, she can live off the government (through speaking fees, etc.) she spews venom about with each waking breath.
On the Daily KOS, Mrs. Sheehan wrote:

"I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings."

How can any one individual be so totally off base and ignorant to the facts of reality? Peace and justice? Sheehan has spread lies, misinformation and ridicule for almost three solid years now. How is that working for peace or justice?
Casey Sheehan was not killed by his country, but by Islamo-fascist thugs (sometimes called insurgents) in Iraq. These are the same type of people who came to America and killed thousands of American citizens when they flew plane loads of truly innocent people into the towers of the World Trade Center. And Cindy Sheehan has the audacity to say our country is "slaughtering innocent human beings"?!? What a load of crap! Even in "resigning", Cindy Sheehan continues to twist the truth into liberal logic.

The one thing I did find credible in her final statement is in regard to the so-called "peace movement". Of that group of misfits and illogical idiots, she writes:

"I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won’t work with that group; he won’t attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions."

As the Daily Kos titled the peace, so I say to Cindy Sheehan, "Good riddance attention whore!" You will NOT be missed. Crawl back under your rock and stay there. Turn you attention to where it should have been all along -- your family and not trying spreading lies about the government that not only keeps you safe, but allows you the right of free speech to vent your venom.

TOPIC: Election 2008 - Fair & Balanced Coverage?

Don't hold your breath! The Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC), along with their socialist cousins (MSNBC and CNN) will be banging the drums loud and hard for liberal candidates. What ever happened to the days of Walter Cronkite -- the days when the news was reported without editorializing, without the evening anchor controlling 100% of the content and without bias that smells as bad as Michael Moore's armpits?
BTW, if you're a very left-leaning person, the cartoon above shows a caricature of Mr. Moore leaning to the left. You may not be able to see that as the drawing may look like Moore is "straight up". LOL!

Addendum: 5.10.07: U.S. Launches Probe of Moore's Trip to Cuba

TOPIC: The Dangers of Liberal Toleration

By Jim Tonkowich
In the polarized world in which we live, the most praised virtue is toleration. We must be tolerant of all people, we are told—all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnicities, religions, and cultures. Fair enough, but while I'm trying to be tolerant, somehow abortion rights, same sex “marriage,” and New York City residents changing their gender on their birth certificates seems to have come in the back door all under the rubric of toleration. Exactly what is going on?
At the recent annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Washington, D.C., Dr. J. Budziszewski of the University of Texas addressed this question in a lecture entitled, “True Toleration and the Failure of Liberal Neutrality.” In it, he concluded that the toleration that has been foisted on the American public is not tolerant at all. Toleration, which is hardly a new idea, has two possible rationales, according to Budziszewski. The first comes from the early Church fathers. This rationale grounds toleration on a paradox — the nature of the good is such that it demands that we put up with (tolerate) some bad. Their point of view centered on religious freedom. God does not coerce belief, and we cannot coerce belief either. People’s consciences may not be violated in the name of the good and the true and thus we must tolerate that which is not good and true, lovingly persuading others, but never forcing compliance in belief. This, said Budziszewski, is proper toleration.
The second rationale, claimed Budziszewski, grounds toleration on an “incoherence.” While the Church fathers urged toleration because of the nature of the good, liberals argue that we must suspend public judgments about the nature of the good. After all, as liberal philosopher John Rawls argued, while the Christian sees the good in one way, the Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Marxist, or hedonistic pleasure-seeker each see it in other ways. Rawls calls each system a “comprehensive doctrine.” And since comprehensive doctrines can’t all be true, and each is more or less reasonable, the only solution for public discourse is to privatize them all, that is, ban all comprehensive doctrines from the public square. This, the argument goes, creates an environment of moral neutrality in which to make public decisions. Rawls, said Budziszewski, considers his approach tolerant and just because he treats everyone in precisely the same way — not endorsing anyone's comprehensive doctrine.
But in truth, Rawls is not being tolerant at all. His view privileges some comprehensive doctrines and suppresses others. Any doctrine that is easily privatized is privileged while any doctrine (Christianity for example) that by its very nature has public implications is suppressed. The liberal argument is nothing more than a camouflaged grab for power. We see this in the abortion debate. Women, we’re told, want and need legal abortion. Arguments to the contrary from religious, natural law, or common good perspectives are ruled out of order. These are comprehensive doctrines with values that must not be imposed on others and should be privatized in the name of toleration. You are free to choose not to have an abortion, but you must be tolerant with others who choose otherwise. And so, without a debate about the actual issue of taking unborn human life, abortion is the law of the land. Is this toleration? Certainly not.
First, said Budziszewski, this liberal toleration doesn’t live up to its own notion of toleration. Choice can never be neutral; it always discriminates between visions of the good. Same sex “marriage” is just as discriminatory as traditional marriage, because it repudiates traditional marriage. Legalizing abortion is just as discriminatory as prohibiting it because it runs roughshod over those who believe that abortion is an act of murder. Nor is liberal toleration “tolerant” in the proper sense of the word.
Advocates of liberal toleration don’t admit that they are judging, so they cannot possibly be judging justly. Since it violates others to judge them without admitting your criteria for judgment, liberal toleration is, in fact, thoroughly intolerant. Reasons can be debated, challenged, and overcome. Liberal toleration cheats by enforcing standards it will not admit to having.
This lack of candor, according to Budziszewski, leads to the great danger of a liberal confessional state. Our country has traditionally enjoyed a confessional state in that we have propounded public ideals. These ideals, our confession, have been declared, not coerced. In Communist states such as North Korea or Islamist states such as Saudi Arabia, the confession is declared and coerced. In the liberal confessional state, for the sake of toleration, the confession is not declared, merely coerced. This led Budziszewski to conclude that “in this country, for the foreseeable future, the chief danger to religious toleration arises not from our avowed religions, but from the unavowed and illiberal religion of liberalism itself.” And it is a danger to us all.

TOPIC: Who REALLY Cares? Conservatives or Liberals; Christians or Atheists?

by Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra

The Religious Right really does put its money where its mouth is—at least more so than its secular rivals, according to a recent study from Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks. Published in late November, 2006 the controversial findings in Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism have grabbed the attention of political commentators.
"If you asked me, I would have expected to find that religious conservatives are stingy," said Brooks, a committed Catholic and political independent. "That's what academics think. That's what we are told all the time." What he found instead was the Religious Right gives more in "every measurable way," from writing checks to volunteering time to donating blood.
Brooks attributes the difference to four factors— church attendance, two-parent families, Protestant work ethic, and distaste for government social services. But he said church attendance is by far the most telling. "Religious liberals and religious conservatives give at the same rate," he said. "What you find is more religious conservatives than religious liberals." Ninety-one percent of regular church attendees give to charity each year, compared with 66 percent of those who said they do not have a religion. The gap adds up— the faithful give four times more money per year than their secular counterparts. While most of that money is given to churches, religious people also give more to secular charities, such as the Red Cross or their alma mater.
Religious people also donate twice as much blood and are more likely to "behave in compassionate ways towards strangers," Brooks said. For example, they are much more likely to return extra change to a cashier when they are accidentally given too much. Generous giving is part of the religious conservative identity, according to sociologist Tony Campolo. "The Religious Right, by conviction, is convinced that helping the poor is something that should be done individually or by the church," said Campolo. "[They say that] asking the state to do it is wrong." But religious conservatives might not want to pat themselves on the back quite yet. Christian research organization Empty Tomb Inc. said evangelicals gave away 6.7 percent of their income in 1968. By 2004, that figure had dropped to 4.4 percent, but growing attendance and rising incomes have kept many churches from feeling the pinch. At the same time, more money is staying within the church to pay for things like music and technology. Evangelical churches, on average, devote only about 2 percent of their budgets to missions.

The Sope-Bocks: While this is NOT bragging, it is an indictment of those who preach tolerance and liberalism. It is also an indictment of those who spew hateful speech about the "evils" of religion, especially targeting Christians. The fact is -- they are TALKING, while believers are DOING.
Don't believe me? When was the last time you saw Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, NOW or the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) working in a disaster area? When was the last time one of these organizations held a blood drive or food drive? When was the last time a feminist group worked in a homeless shelter or gathered garments for the local clothes closet? When have you ever seen PETA sponsor a fund-raiser that aided the poor?
The fact is -- those organizations are bent towards hate speech, accusatory rhetoric, anger and, worst of all, self-righteous pride. They don't really HELP anyone. And frankly, they NEVER will. It is NOT part of their make-up, their thought processes or their beliefs.

Isn't it time people starting THINKING -- and realizing -- that these groups are NOT helpful, but hurtful, hateful and destructive to true peace and cooperation among humans?!?

TOPIC: Do You Pay Tuition For These Courses?
Conservative Group Lists Annual 'Dirty Dozen' Most PC College Courses

Agape Press / Jim Brown

The Young America's Foundation (YAF) has unveiled its annual "Dirty Dozen," a listing of America's top 12 most politically correct college courses. Among the bizarre and disturbingly leftist offerings YAF is highlighting this year are courses such as "Mail-Order Brides," "Adultery," "Cyberfeminism," "Homosexual Literature," and "Lesbian Pulp Fiction."
Topping this year's Dirty Dozen list is Occidental College in California with a course named after the male genital organ. Rounding out the top three is a University of California-Los Angeles course called "Queer Musicology" and an Amherst College class called "Taking Marx Seriously." And making YAF's dishonorable mention list is a course at UC-Berkeley called "Sex Change City: Theorizing History in Genderqueer San Francisco."
YAF spokesman Jason Mattera says what these schools view as avant-garde, breakthrough classes are supplanting traditional scholarship on Western civilization. "We have a soaring tuition problem in this country," he points out. "Tuition rates are soaring past inflation, and these classes gobble up time, money, and energy -- resources that could be used to offset the cost of tuition and teach students about American values, American civics, American history." One particular school has been a perennial among the Dirty Dozen, Mattera points out. "Occidental College seems to make the list twice almost every year," he says. "They have a class called 'The Phallus,' and they offer another class called 'Blackness.'" The latter course "elaborates on a 'new blackness,' 'critical blackness,' 'post-blackness,' and an 'unforgivable blackness,' which all combine to create a feminist 'new black man,'" the young conservatism advocate explains. "Now, I don't know what a feminist 'new black man' is," Mattera says, "but it doesn't sound like something that I'd ever want to be."
Other college classes making YAF's 2006-2007 Dirty Dozen list include Mount Holyoke College's "Whiteness: the Other Side of Racism"; the University of Washington's "Border Crossings, Borderlands: Transnational Feminist Perspectives on Immigration"; Swarthmore's "Nonviolent Responses to Terrorism"; and the University of Michigan's "Native American Feminisms."

The Sope-Bocks: It's time to reign in tenor for college professors who think up and "teach" this junk. Students need to taught how to think, NOT what to think. Some of these course titles imply indoctrination, rather than the teaching of critical thinking skills. What if you or your child takes such a course, but disagrees with the professor? Count on a big fat "F" for that course -- and a total waste of your money and time. Folks, if we don't make changes now, we can count on more and more of this sort of thing in the future. Colleges CANNOT survive without students' tuition. REFUSE to pay tuition for courses like these and the professors will be forced to stop "teaching" them. The real power is in OUR HANDS, not theirs. So, let's use it to get so-called "institutions of higher learning" back on track.
FWIW, Young America's Foundation (YAF) also has a list of GOOD, Top Ten Conservative Colleges. It is linked here, for your review.